Page 15 of 15 FirstFirst ... 5131415
Results 141 to 150 of 150

Thread: U.S Army switching to 6.8mm

  1. #141
    Site Supporter
    Join Date
    Oct 2013
    Location
    Canton GA
    I have the t-shirt and scars from previous experience with Big Army and "readiness" from my own mobilizations from Desert Storm and OIF plus deploying multiple BNs and COs to OEF. 90 days would be a fast deployment for a National Guard maneuver unit of BN size and hopefully longer for a Heavy Brigade. First issue is you have to "prove" to First Army all the skills from individual through crew through PLT, CO, BN, and BDE culminating at a CTC like event. All the qualifications during Title 32 time are typically ignored.

    PS - we do not have enough airlift or sealift to move the ARNG Heavy Brigades so we will have time to spin up.

  2. #142
    Site Supporter
    Join Date
    Aug 2011
    Location
    TEXAS !
    Quote Originally Posted by Tabasco View Post
    ^^^^^
    This

    The Ukrainians lost their power grid for a time due to Russian hacking. They were able to restore it pretty quickly as was the old manual equipment was still in place and functional. There's a reason the Navy started teaching old school navigation again.
    In the west point lecture I linked, Dr Karber (a former marine officer) says straight out - if you can read a map / use a compass get out of the Army.

  3. #143
    Quote Originally Posted by ranger View Post
    I have the t-shirt and scars from previous experience with Big Army and "readiness" from my own mobilizations from Desert Storm and OIF plus deploying multiple BNs and COs to OEF. 90 days would be a fast deployment for a National Guard maneuver unit of BN size and hopefully longer for a Heavy Brigade. First issue is you have to "prove" to First Army all the skills from individual through crew through PLT, CO, BN, and BDE culminating at a CTC like event. All the qualifications during Title 32 time are typically ignored.

    PS - we do not have enough airlift or sealift to move the ARNG Heavy Brigades so we will have time to spin up.
    A huge amount of our tactical airlift capability is in the ANG and AFRC as well; that takes time to spool up the guys who need to load and fly the troops and equipment into place.

  4. #144
    The R in F.A.R.T RevolverRob's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2014
    Location
    Gotham Adjacent
    So, I recognize that one of the major lessons from WW2 was stashing a large portion of your logistical transports in one place is a bad idea (Pearl Harbor). But what are the best ways to meet the logistical needs of a war in say Korea? Presumably we will deploy out of Japan and the Philippines, but we have to get people there first, right? We know carriers and transport vessels are sitting ducks for submarines.

    I guess I'm really curious to know why we haven't built a substantial fleet of transport submarines? Obviously, you can't transport as much in a submarine as a gigantic transport ship, but even still...

  5. #145
    Quote Originally Posted by RevolverRob View Post
    I guess I'm really curious to know why we haven't built a substantial fleet of transport submarines? Obviously, you can't transport as much in a submarine as a gigantic transport ship, but even still...
    Budget priorities, manpower limitations, plus give the way subs are designed you really can't carry much in a submarine. We have not had enough money to fund more pressing items. Subs are limited in dimensions in terms of height and width in ways that surface ships are not. So if you could design a submarine that could carry anything substantial it would be an awkwardly long and bulky monsterous beast that would be so big that it would be hard to navigate into docks and harbors. It would be a failure because you cannot load or unload material off a submarine as quickly or easily as a surface ship.

  6. #146
    Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2014
    Location
    Atlanta

    Another teaser article

    Could this be something totally brand new, like a caseless cartridge, or is the article just click bait?

    https://www.militarytimes.com/news/y...20Bird%20Brief

  7. #147
    Puff piece with no solid information.
    Code Name: JET STREAM

  8. #148
    Quote Originally Posted by KeithH View Post
    Could this be something totally brand new, like a caseless cartridge, or is the article just click bait?

    https://www.militarytimes.com/news/y...20Bird%20Brief
    Military Times is like HuffPo for milnews

  9. #149
    Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2014
    Location
    Atlanta
    Thanks....I thought I was being teased. The article was so frustratingly vague. Like words were being multiplied without knowledge.

    Guess I'll have to wait.

  10. #150
    The article is ok for a general military publication. It references Jim Schatz and Dr Gary Roberts in the article who are SME'a is this area. Doc GKR posted in this thread. For more detailed info, I found these presentation by Jim Schatz with a google search.

    https://ndiastorage.blob.core.usgovc...260_Schatz.pdf

    https://ndiastorage.blob.core.usgovc...354_Schatz.pdf

User Tag List

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •