Posted on Nov 5, 2013
Heavy armor and heavy guns, or light and agile force?
5.7K
2
6
0
0
0
Posted in these groups: 
Airborne School
Tanks
Airborne School Tanks
Posted >1 y ago
Responses: 4
1
1
0
I think the current system works fine. We've got light and agile (USMC) to kick in the door, with help from support assets (Navy and Air Force) so that eventually the large lubering brute force (Army) can come occupy that territory, also with help from Air and shore support assets.
The problem is lately we've been trying to use our branches in ways they were never intended or trained to be used.
(1)
(0)
TSgt (Join to see)
I do not think our military is so service specific when it comes to major combat operations anymore. Since most efforts are now joint in nature the Joint Force Commanders do a great job in using their forces correctly. However, it is our job as NCOs to inform our leaders of our service's role in the joint environment.
(0)
(0)
0
0
0
0
0
0
We can only maximize our effectiveness as a fighting force by emphasizing both. Hence the reason we have moved to the CAB format. It allows us to combine the firepower and protective ability of heavy armor with the mobility and flexibility of light fighter forces.
(0)
(0)
TSgt (Join to see)
Sir, what is the CAB format? I am familiar with Brigade Combat Teams that have all the logistics and combat effectiveness to operate independantly from a main force.
(0)
(0)
Read This Next
Continue with Facebook 
Continue with Google