Heavy armor and heavy guns, or light and agile force?

TSgt Private RallyPoint Member — Tue, 05 Nov 2013 12:07:49 -0500

Response by SFC Michael Hasbun made Nov 5 at 2013 12:12 PM

SFC Michael Hasbun — Tue, 05 Nov 2013 12:12:56 -0500

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.

Response by CPT Mike M. made Nov 5 at 2013 4:04 PM

CPT Mike M. — Tue, 05 Nov 2013 16:04:35 -0500

It's never as simple as that. Coming from someone who's spent their entire time with heavy units and knows, without a doubt, tanks are the most awesome pieces of machinery mankind has ever made (pretty sure that's a fact, not opinion!) even I say you have to have both capabilities. Our biggest weaponry helps us steamroll our way to an objective quickly and with minimal friendly casualties when needed but for the more intricate areas, areas with civilians, urban populations, and/or just to hold key terrain, there has to be boots on the ground.

Response by CPT Private RallyPoint Member made Nov 5 at 2013 4:20 PM

CPT Private RallyPoint Member — Tue, 05 Nov 2013 16:20:52 -0500

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.

Response by SGT Scott Bell made Sep 6 at 2015 6:16 PM

SGT Scott Bell — Sun, 06 Sep 2015 18:16:22 -0400

LIGHT