Doug Macgregor: Army Makes Another Bad Move — “Light” Tanks for Dead Infantry

10 Security, 11 Society, Corruption, Ineptitude, Military
Col Dr. Douglas Macgregor

Army picks two companies to build prototypes for a new cannon-toting vehicle to back up infantry

My comment: The Army is pursuing a 1942 tactical solution to contemporary warfare. Providing light infantry with light tanks was a desperate measure in 1942 to make up for a lack of firepower and protection. It did not work against the Germans who triumphed wherever it was tried. The German and Soviet use of Main battle tanks led to whole sale mechanization and fielding of armored infantry/panzer grenadier formations in all Western armies by the end of WWII.

The M8 Buford is an old chassis with a weaker engine than the M2 Bradley and the AJAX is the same chassis that the British are gonna use and is based on the ASCOD used in Spain and Austria. The AJAX when fully armored weighs up to 42 metric tons but has a 600 kW engine. Compare to the Puma when fully armored weighs 44 metric tons but has an 800 kW engine. PUMA survivability is vastly superior to the Army’s preferred solutions.

Both the Buford and AJAX are old technology, but  because they are BAE and GD, the US Army isn’t allowing for real competition.


Here's Why It Will Take Six More Years to Field the Army's New Light Tank

Robert David STEELE Vivas

ROBERT STEELE: There are huge similarities among the ways that the US buys airplanes, ships, and vehicles — the ways are optimized to waste money on the military-industrial complex, not actually create sustainable capabilities that can win wars. Roughly 60% of the Pentagon's inventory is “down” at any given time for lack of spare parts, trained mechanics, scarce software diagnostic devices, and more. Col (Ret) Dr. Macgregor is not only America's greatest living armor officer with both books and major armored victories to the his credit, he is a patriot who thinks about keeping infantry alive. As General (Ret) Bob Scales has pointed out, the infantry is 4% of the force, takes 80% of the casualites, and gets 1% of the budget. Pentagon strategy and force structure planning is close to treasonous, out of control, and not worth what we pay for it.

See Especially:

Robert Steele: On the Record – 4% of the Force Takes 80% of the Casualties, Receives 1% of the Pentagon Budget

Robert Steele: Reflections on The People’s Army, The Constitution, & Grand Strategy

Del Spurlock: The US Army, The US Constitution, & US Society

Robert Steele: Grand Strategy, Global Reality, & Re-Inventing US National Security Centered on Re-Inventing the US Army

See Also:

Macgregor @ Phi Beta Iota

Financial Liberty at Risk-728x90