Quote:
Originally posted by MaggieL
It's all well and good to claim that "armored warfare is over"
|
What idiot claimed that?
Quote:
|
As far as I can see Abrams is to M60 as Crusader is to Paladin...to the point that versions of the Crusaider and Abrams now in development will use a common engine.
|
No... Abrams was an excellent replacement for the obsolete M60. Nobody disputes the need for a heavy main battle tank like Abrams. Crusader, unfortunately, is not a good replacement for Paladin, for the reasons we've already discussed.
Quote:
|
The alternative is to ditch Crusader now, and hope the Paladin holds up as well as the B-52 has (or that tw is right and armored warfare and artillery are *really* dead this time) .
|
No... the alternative is to ditch Crusader now and rely on MLRS, HIMARS and Paladin until a truly useful self-propelled artillery system can be developed and deployed. (One that actually meets the mobility and deployability criteria of the Army's FCS program, maybe? Hmmmm??)
Quote:
|
That said, the way DoD specifies and buys hardware is expensive, graft-ridden, slow, inefficient and clumsy. And it's been that way for hundreds of years. How do you folks think it should be changed to fix it?
|
Heh. Put my Mom in charge of DoD procurement. Sheeesh... I've never seen anybody beat down prices like she can at a Saturday-morning yard sale!