| Submit your comments on this article |
| Predator was used as armed escort |
| 2004-02-17 |
| This is significant The US Air Force’s MQ-1 Predator medium-altitude remotely piloted aircraft undertook a new role during the US-led Operation ’Iraqi Freedom’ in 2003 that has received little fanfare to date: armed escort. Already used in combat as an overhead surveillance asset and armed platform to attack time-critical ground targets, JDW has learned that an MQ-1 substituted for an AC-130 Spectre gunship to provide ingress and egress cover for army helicopters during a mission to extract senior Iraqi Republican Guard officials who wished to defect Also check out this article about lessons learned from Marine use of tactical UAVs in Iraq. The Corps too sees a role for armed UAVs as escorts for Ospreys. Think about these technologies as you consider Rumsfeld’s insistence that more soldiers isn’t the complete answer ... |
| Posted by:rkb |
| #11 The problem of the Sherman was not logistical but conceptual. "He [Patton] said that the tanks of an armored division were not supposed to fight other tanks but bypass them if possible and attack enemy objectives to the rear." |
| Posted by: Mr. Davis 2004-2-17 10:27:50 PM |
| #10 Ship, how about - Kasserine Pass - Philippines - Wake Island (okay, they were really badly outnumbered, so maybe that doesn't count) - early Pacific Air War; even Midway counts IMO -- the story of all those Devastators wiped out depresses me to this day |
| Posted by: Carl in NH 2004-2-17 10:27:09 PM |
| #9 The Sherman tank (Ronson) was a death trap, but I'm sure that part of the design problem was the necessity to transport the tank across the ocean. We are having simular issues with logistics for moving hummers and strikers versus the old fashioned jeeps. |
| Posted by: Super Hose 2004-2-17 9:16:50 PM |
| #8 The Japanese Long Lance was superior to every other country's torpedo during WWII in both range and size of the warhead. The problem with the U.S. torpedo was not the body of the torpedo itself but the "high tech" magentic warhead. The magnetic warhead failed to go off as designed and caused the torpedo run 10-15 feet deeper then what it was set for (which tended to prevent the torpedo from actually striking the target). Many of the defeats at the beginning of the war can be attributed to poor leadship and/or bad training, Savo Island being an example of both. Much of the U.S. equipment was equal to or superior of the rest of the world's. |
| Posted by: Lurks often 2004-2-17 8:15:12 PM |
| #7 Savo Island was a failure of training in night combat, even though the US had a huge lead in radar technology. German tanks were better than US tanks , but US fighter bombers were better than either. It was the massive no... fearsome casualties that ZF was alluding to that made me prick up my ear... US casualties were light. |
| Posted by: Shipman 2004-2-17 6:43:26 PM |
| #6 The difference today is that we still had a robust R&D program and didn't abandon the military after the end of the cold war like we did after WWI. Thank God for the evil Military Industrial Complex. |
| Posted by: whitecollar redneck 2004-2-17 5:37:18 PM |
| #5 Our tanks were inferior to the Panzers all the way through WWII. However, I remember reading about a German tank commander. To paraphrase he said he would blow up 3 tanks and 4 more would come over the hill. He knew the Germans would lose because they could not replace losses in manpower and equipment like the US could. |
| Posted by: whitecollar redneck 2004-2-17 5:31:38 PM |
| #4 Ship - you'd know better than me but what about the Navy's Mark IV torpedoes at the beginning of the war in the Pacific, compared to the Japanese Long Lances? We lost a thousand sailors at Savo Island. |
| Posted by: Matt 2004-2-17 5:03:38 PM |
| #3 We went into WWII with second-rate weapons systems and took fearsome casualties I tend to disagree with that ZF... are you thinking of a particular instance? |
| Posted by: Shipman 2004-2-17 3:49:16 PM |
| #2 Think about these technologies as you consider Rumsfeld’s insistence that more soldiers isn’t the complete answer Rumsfeld is absolutely right - more troops mean less advanced weapons systems. We went into WWII with second-rate weapons systems and took fearsome casualties in its early innings. Men can be trained up in a hurry - weapons systems take years to develop, by which time major battles could already have been fought and lost. |
| Posted by: Zhang Fei 2004-2-17 3:15:54 PM |
| #1 these UAV's can be good assets definatly,incidently USMC are apparently very interested in purchesing some of thier own AC-130's.As for Rummys ways of wanting less troops but higher tech i think he's spot on really,Rummy seems a very intelligent guy when it comes to future defence stratagys,he dosn't fuck about either when he says he wants to do something,be a shame when he go's. |
| Posted by: Jon Shep U.K 2004-2-17 3:12:08 PM |