Future thinkers wanted light air-deployable "tanks" and other vehicles because it took too darn long to move our Abrams and Bradleys to a distant theater where they could roll forward and collect our assumed victory from an enemy that knows it is doomed and will just go through the motions of fighting us before giving up.
I protested that protection--with the logical consequence of weight--is necessary to fight. I defended the dinosaurs against the evolved furry little mammals that would make tanks obsolete, at long last.
So let me enjoy this story on the plans for the new Ground Combat Vehicle, which is to replace the Bradley Fighting Vehicle:
Days before industry proposals were due, Army Vice Chief of Staff Gen. Peter Chiarelli provided new details about the Ground Combat Vehicle program, saying the new vehicle could weigh up to 70 tons, but only if the threat environment required it.
“We’re looking at a vehicle that ranges in weight between 50 and 70 tons,” Chiarelli said Wednesday at the Army’s armor conference.
He said he’s been involved in some heated discussions lately about the GCV and the debate “always comes down to the weight of the vehicle.”
Critics point out that at 70 tons, the GCV would be the heaviest infantry fighting vehicle in existence and as heavy as the Abrams tank. Chiarelli said the extra weight in armor protection would be used only when needed.
“We’re not talking about a 70-ton vehicle, we’re talking about a 70-ton vehicle when we need it,” Chiarelli said.
Seventy tons. For an infantry carrier. We've come a long way from the M-113, eh?
Well, it is only 70 tons when it needs it for maximum armor protection. Otherwise, it will be stripped down to a lean 50-ton vehicle in a lower threat environment.
This is a far cry from the days when the futurists wanted a 19-ton "tank" Future Combat Systems vehicle to replace those wretched 70-ton Abrams main battle tanks. It drove me nuts that we actually thought we could airlift our way into a war by sending in multiple brigades that way. As if the Air Force would buy all those transport planes--even if it was a good idea to spend our money that way. Shoot, some were upset that the Stryker had to have pieces taken off to fit on a C-130--as if we might have to fight our way down the plane's ramp at an airhead!
Shipping units in by sea--or prepositioning on land or nearby at sea--has always seemed the only way to go. Tactical airlift for battalion-sized units makes sense. But we should have separate vehicles for that purpose and not driving the entire Army's vehicle selection.
Strykers are proving effective as a bridge unit between leg infantry and heavy units with Abrams and Bradleys, but the leg and heavy units are still necessary. Experience in actual war has edged out the theories of our best and brightest futurists. So I'm glad that the whole "airlifting the (light) Army to war" craze is over.
But still, seventy tons? That's freaking heavy. Yeah, I know, there's no pleasing me.
