"Mobile Protected Firepower: The U.S. Army’s New Light Tank" Topic

"In a press release, the U.S. Army announced that initial Mobile Protected Firepower (MPF) prototypes arrived at Fort Bragg, North Carolina. The preproduction MPF vehicles will be put through their paces by paratroopers from the Army's 82 Airborne.

"We are incredibly excited to see the MPF platform entering into this phase," an Army Ground Combat Systems official stated, explaining that the "MPF represents an innovative and aggressive approach to system acquisition. The beginning of our SVA (soldier vehicle assessment) in January illustrates how hard the teams are working to keep the major events of this program on schedule," despite the ongoing pandemic…"

Main page
link

Amicalement
Armand

Argh. Every period of peace the concept of "light armor" gets reinvented by drawing-arrows-on-maps guys. Then the shooting starts and men pay with their lives to demonstrate, again, that in wartime every light armored vehicle is found to be woefully underarmored. Send a tank, or don't send a tank – but don't send brave troops out in something that looks like a tank but ain't…

So how exactly would you go about air-dropping an M1 Abrams?

Damon.

C5 Galaxy and a parachute the size of a football stadium?

Forget air dropping any AFV's. How about anti-tank and AA drones para-dropped in suitcases? In the recent conflict between Armenia and Azerbaijan, drones seemed to work pretty well against AA and armor. In ten to twenty years…I'm guessing they will be very prevalent on the battlefield.

So how exactly would you go about air-dropping an M1 Abrams?

Only once …

Well you can drop an AFV, using LAPES. Low Altitude Parachute Extraction System. That is how the 82d deployed them M551s. And from a C-130. I'd imagine today you could use a C-17 for a heavier AFV, using LAPES …

The Russian used rockets to slow the decent of their Paratroops AFVs, e.g. ASU-57 or BMD … And have a soft landing …

The US army has never adopted a light tank since the M551 Sheridan. Not that there weren't any proposed like the Commando Stingray and the RDF/LT. So don't hold your breath.

BTW China has the Type 15 weighing in at around 30 tons.

It looks like cloth armor? Ummmm that ain't-a-gonna work.

"So how exactly would you go about air-dropping an M1 Abrams?"

Fly in low & drop it like you are skip bombing. Make sure the M1's transmission is set in neutral, so that the tracks can roll freely… ;-)

Light Tanks were never meant to go head to head with MBTs. In the 82nd they are used for recon and as an infantry support tank. The link provided shows how to airdrop tanks.

link

I'm sure they will be under a lot of trees this season.

link

"Light Tanks were never meant to go head to head with MBTs." Yes, and M113s were never meant to risk driving over mines, and scout HUMMVs were never meant to have to deal with IEDs, etc. My point is that the enemy never cooperates with our plans. Individual infantrymen can use tactics and terrain to limit their exposure to enemy fire but vehicles are much more limited in this regard. Every shooting war every army finds it necessary to upgrade armor, and every peacetime this lesson seems to get lost again.

As for airdropping tanks, (a) if you need a tank, capture an airfield, and (b) airdropping tanks has always been a stunt anyway – it takes a huge time and effort to rig the things for the drop, and the 82nd frequently found that the operation damaged the suspension anyway (the Soviets reportedly had the same experience with the BMD). The Sheridans were retired more than 20 years ago.

"It looks like cloth armor?"

Can't you see the snow? It's wearing a coat.

The US army has never adopted a light tank since the M551 Sheridan. Not that there weren't any proposed like the Commando Stingray and the RDF/LT. So don't hold your breath.

The 82d got some former USMC LAVs recently. They got LAVs instead of Strykers. As 4 LAVs can fit in C-17 but only 3 Strykers.

Get as much firepower on the ground as soon as possible …

Dragon Gunner +1 "AIRBORNE" !!!!

Yes, and M113s were never meant to risk driving over mines, and scout HUMMVs were never meant to have to deal with IEDs, etc.

Commanded an M113 Co.,'87-'89 with a separate Mech Hvy Bde stationed at Benning. It was part of the 18th Airborne Corps. The Heavy element meant to support the 82d and 101. Also at that time the 82d was still using the M551.

That Mech Hvy Bde, the 197th, had 2 M113 Mech Bns and a Tank Bn of 3 Cos. of M60A1s and 1 Co. of M1IPs.

BTW in many cases few AFVs could survive a mine or Booby Trap/IED hit. The best thing you can hope for is track/road wheel damage. Which can be repaired and no one inside becomes a casualty.

The worst … catastrophic destruction, the vehicle is beyond repair and everyone inside is a casualty. This is generally rare. But if you have seen videos, pics, etc. from just about an conflict … it does happen …

I also was with a forward deployed Mech Bn with 2ID in the ROK. For 22 months, '84-'85, before I was sent to Benning with the Mech Hvy Bde.

We use lessons learned from Vietnam. Sandbagging the deck inside the troop compartment. And many times riding on top as they learned in Vietnam, if you are inside an M113 and you hit a mine, booby trap/now called IEDs. You all could die, etc.

Only go inside if in a direct assault, suspected contact or effective fire/contact. That is the way we trained for those ops, in prep for combat. As well as sandbagging the front and top of the M113. Any little bit could help.

We talked about using Chain Link fence sections mounted on pickets. Set them up in front of the M113 about 10-15ft. When in the defense/NDP, on very long halts, etc. The RPG being a HEAT round. The probe at the end of the warhead had to hit something fairly solid to detonate. So the Chain Link fence sections could "catch" round in the mesh. The round was/is not going that fast. Or if it did detonate it would expend the HEAT warhead into the space between the fence and the Track. Don't be there …

Individual infantrymen can use tactics and terrain to limit their exposure to enemy fire but vehicles are much more limited in this regard.

Every troop is trained to use camo, cover and concealment as well as noise and light discipline. You always want to try to not make yourself a target. Get something to block enemy LOS and better yet something solid between you and enemy fires. The same goes for AFVs of all types. Including soft skins like M151s, HMMWVs, etc.

As well as using good tactics e.g. Fire and Maneuver/Movement, prep fires, stealth, surprise, etc.

Everything is dependent on terrain and situation. Plus weather and light conditions. And even with all that … you could still be a target and get KIA'd, WIA'd, etc.

The terrain, weather, and the enemy does not always cooperate …

The 82d got some former USMC LAVs recently. They got LAVs instead of Strykers. As 4 LAVs can fit in C-17 but only 3 Strykers.

LAV's and Strykers are wheeled light armored vehicles, not tracked light tanks, so you'll have to pardon my skepticism that the proposed MPF will ever see the light of day.

Yes, I know very well those are wheeled AFVs. I've even seen them up close. At least the Stryker IIRC. Was tight inside, much tighter than a M113.

As far as what will happen to the MPF program ? With pending cuts to the US military by 10% in the next year or so … So it may not make into reality at least at anytime soon.

Through experience I have come to accept that any proposed light tank for the US Army will never happen, just like any proposed light prop-driven attack aircraft will never happen for the USAF.

The theory is that a light AFV is better than no AFV.

However, that doesn't always hold true. If you have something on the OB that looks like a tank – sooner or later it will get used as a tank and then casualties will be suffered at a rate that is not acceptable.

I think this project will soak up billions in development costs before being quietly dropped.

Light tanks are a stupid idea. Some kind of light AFV with troop carrying ability could work. Armour limited to small arms and MGs up to 8mm calibre and artillery fragments could be useful. Role just to be recon and light combat. LAVs seem a good compromise overall.

Hasn't the US military been around this house before, in fact several times? I would have thought in the current milieu it have made more sense to give airborne forces more ATGW, portable recon and loitering drones and may be some form of 'mechanical mule' to help port them around?

However, that doesn't always hold true.

The 82d has used M551s in combat situations and has proved to be worthwhile. Other opinions not withstanding …

Hasn't the US military been around this house before, in fact several times? I would have thought in the current milieu it have made more sense to give airborne forces more ATGW, portable recon and loitering drones and may be some form of 'mechanical mule' to help port them around?

Yes, the US had developed a number of lighter yet effective light AFVs, e.g. the Stryker and LAV. And the 82d now has some LAVs as I mentioned.

One of the considerations that the US Military has to look at is you must have some lighter enough and yet somewhat powerful AFVs to be rapidly deployable.

Once a port, and/or an airfield is secured, the the heavier follow on forces can be brought in. E.g. MBTs, IFVs, FA, etc., etc.

The Mechanical Mule was on it's way out when I was in the 101, '80-'83. Primarily for mortars and some of the Infantry Plt additional ammo and equipment. We'd even ride on them at times. But they were old and prone to breakdown, etc. So they were all eventually just gone from the TO&Es. While I was still in the 101 way back then.

Now no doubt today they have a number of commercial vehicles etc., that could replace the M274 Mules. But AFAIK the US Military has not opted to add anything like that. At least at this time ? But has experiment with light vehicles like this, IIRC SF units have used them in some situations.

In the 101 back then our TOWs were mounted on M151 "Jeeps", each with a trailer full of extra missiles. The TOW then, and now the Improved versions, are one of the most effective Infantry tank killers on the battlefield. Those jeeps were replaced by the HMMWV around '86(?). And along with TOWs being mounted, Mk.19 GLs and even .50 cals were added to some HMMWVs. Certainly some welcomed additional firepower.

Light Infantry e.g. 82d and 101, the squad carries man packed AT weapons, like the M47 MAW "Dragon". When I was in the 101 and other Infantry units later including Mech. And even M72 LAWs of of course were also carried. The M47 was being replaced by the AT4 then Javelin, etc. The M72 was still in use as well. The TOW is currently mounted on Strykers and LAVs too.

Now I'm sure Drones have been or will be shortly added to many units TO&Es. They are very effective at recon and of course with the Hellfire missile, a deadly AT, etc. weapon.

Also with Light Infantry ops, you can't generally operate like a mounted Mech unit. In most cases. You have to move dismounted, use stealth/night ops, ambushes, etc., to set up AT weapons, etc.
Which in the right terrain can be very effective. E.g. thick woods, jungles,[we learned from the VC!] etc., even MOUT.

Or covering open terrain like in the desert and the fields of crops between the little villages in (West)Germany. In many cases with 2000-4000m between them. The TOW has a range of about 3750m. Which today the newer versions are even longer.

So again not only is Light Infantry TO&Es are a bit different than Mech. But you have to know how to use different tactics and techniques, etc. However dismounted Mech will use the same tactics, etc. The M113 is a lightly armored Infantry Taxi. It is not an assault vehicle. Infantry does it's best work on the ground.

Being a Rifle PL in the 101 then later a Mech[M113] Co Cdr. I used my experiences in the 101 to often move dismounted at night to attack the OPFOR. Actually all Infantry Officers and NCOs are trained to do this. It was just known as my predilection to use the dismounted night attack if the tactical situation allowed it. Many cases the Bn Cdr would send me on these night ops, especially when attached to a Tank Bn, which was often.

Hasn't the US military been around this house before

You're not wrong. The Future Combat Systems and Ground Combat Vehicle programs are the two most recent attempts to develop a new light tank, and both were cancelled after many billions of dollars poured into them without a light tank being procured. So there's no reason to think this time will be any different.

Looks like plywood, or foamcore "armor" to me over the tracks at least, perhaps to hide the details of the suspension system, or cover up for there not being one for a model mockup.

One can plainly see that the corners of the "armor" are far to close to the treads to be practical, AND will be torn off or severely damaged at the first small bump of hill encountered.

If it is fabric, that'll screw with the treads and bogies when the first breeze or any brush pushes it into those, perhaps causing them to jam, or break.

Other than that, the design is okay, if perhaps quite a bit too tall.

I do like the colors and camo scheme.

No one is pretending light tanks have more survivability. I also agree that sooner or later they will be thrust into situations where they will suffer serious losses.

The issue is they are needed for the Rapid Deployment Force. The ability to send a combined arms force anywhere in 24 hours is the issue. Send something that arrives tomorrow or send something that arrives six plus weeks from now… The heavier units with more survivability need to be loaded on ships, transported to destination, off loaded then travel to where the battlefield is, this will take weeks if not months.

What is usually boils down to is the opinion you personally have of the RDF. I run into a lot of people that believe the only military that matters is heavy conventional units that were made to slug it out with heavy OPFOR units. They tend to poo poo lighter units because they lack killing power and survivability. They also tend to create the scenario to justify their opinion.

"Yes, and M113s were never meant to risk driving over mines, and scout HUMMVs were never meant to have to deal with IEDs, etc. My point is that the enemy never cooperates with our plans."

The real problem was once the OPFOR resorted to these tactic we played to their strong card. We continued to drive up and down the streets for years getting hammered. Some Draconian solutions could have dealt with the problem instead we opted to let our servicemen get butchered to placate caterwauling civilians…

"Some kind of light AFV with troop carrying ability could work. Armour limited to small arms and MGs up to 8mm calibre and artillery fragments could be useful. Role just to be recon and light combat. LAVs seem a good compromise overall."

It is about having a tank gun on an armored platform that can bring direct fire against OPFOR strongpoints from a safe range and survive. Tracked is a bonus for getting through terrain a wheeled vehicle might bog down in.

Dragon Gunner, how likely is it that these same tactical scenarios won't play out in the future? Either the enemy is a first-rate power (China, Russia) in which case a light tank is doomed and the RDF isn't a valid concept anyway; or the enemy is a guerilla force that will melt away before we identify any "OPFOR strongpoints" to engage, obliging us to "drive up and down the streets for years". In which case there's no need to get into theatre in a hurry.

You can deplore the "lack of will" to impose "Draconian solutions", but the fact is that we will never take a Wehrmacht-style approach to insurgency. (Not that the Wehrmacht's approach to insurgency actually won…)

The issue is they are needed for the Rapid Deployment Force.

Yes very much so ! Again I was with the 101, '80-'83. It along with the 82d and the 197th Mech Hvy Bde were part of the RDF …

What is usually boils down to is the opinion you personally have of the RDF. I run into a lot of people that believe the only military that matters is heavy conventional units that were made to slug it out with heavy OPFOR units. They tend to poo poo lighter units because they lack killing power and survivability. They also tend to create the scenario to justify their opinion.

BINGO ! As I said, One of the considerations that the US Military has to look at is you must have some lighter enough and yet somewhat powerful AFVs to be rapidly deployable.

Once a port, and/or an airfield is secured, the the heavier follow on forces can be brought in. E.g. MBTs, IFVs, FA, etc., etc.

Tracked is a bonus for getting through terrain a wheeled vehicle might bog down in.

Again we had the same training … as I posted You have to move dismounted, use stealth/night ops, ambushes, etc., to set up AT weapons, etc.
Which in the right terrain can be very effective.

how likely is it that these same tactical scenarios won't play out in the future? Either the enemy is a first-rate power (China, Russia) in which case a light tank is doomed and the RDF isn't a valid concept anyway; or the enemy is a guerilla force that will melt away before we identify any "OPFOR strongpoints" to engage, obliging us to "drive up and down the streets for years". In which case there's no need to get into theatre in a hurry.

Again everything depends on terrain and situation. But many of your assumptions IMO are not completely accurate or just wrong.

Infantry units are trained to operate in any and all tactical ops and situations. With or without AFV support of any kind. Which in many cases units like the 101, we rarely got AFV support of any kind.

We trained to engage armored/mech forces like the USSR, PRC and even North Korea[they have about 3000 MBTs today!]. And also trained in COIN, like the US military saw in SE Asia. Only a few years before I started training as an ROTC Cadet in '75.

We learned how to move quietly into AT ambush positions or just ambushes against Infantry, trucks, etc. Raids on enemy locations, etc. The enemy regardless of caliber, e.g. modern combined arms force or lightly armed insurgents. The tactics would be similar but modified as needed. E.g. you may need to carry more AT weapons if engaging the USSR, etc. Where less vs. the VC. Infantry has to be very flexible. As I said, I was in both Light and Mech Infantry.

We always fight combined arms using FA, CAS, Gunships, even Naval Gunfire, etc. Even if no armor support is available.

As I said, Infantry does it's best work on the ground.

You get your light and spec ops forces in there as rapidly as possible to get intel, ID the insurgent, his locations, leadership, predilections, etc. Attrite him as much as possible, using using dismounted ops and combined arms. Then when the heavy equipment gets there work with those units in again combined ops. As we were all trained to do, etc. Also an insurgency to survive has to have not only internal support but support from the outside. We saw this in SE Asia and later in A'stan.

he real problem was once the OPFOR resorted to these tactic we played to their strong card. We continued to drive up and down the streets for years getting hammered. Some Draconian solutions could have dealt with the problem instead we opted to let our servicemen get butchered to placate caterwauling civilians…

Yes, exactly, what I find a bit "upsetting", that the fear of collateral damage limits our use of firepower. To prevent non-combatant losses and even infrastructure, etc.. This is very important in any insurgency. But too often it can be at the sacrifice of our own troops, etc.

I have heard too many time in both Vietnam, Somalia, Iraq, and A'stan troops on the ground in contact or prep fires being denied i.e. FA, CAS, etc. for fear of CD. CD is a double edged sword. And it has to be used "properly", e.g. not carpet bombing, etc.
But the insurgent hides, moves, etc., gets support from the locals too. It is classic Mao and Che', etc. techniques, etc.

The paddy farmer or goat herder today is working in his fields. By night he may be setting ambushes, planting mines, booby traps/IEDs, etc. No one can read minds AFAIK …

Now each of those locations of conflict have a unique take on "hearts & minds". The VC and NVA just wanted us out of their land. As did many in Somalia, however, many in A'stan and Iraq, e.g. AQ and later ISIS wanted to kill us in our homeland. The the fanatical radical jihadi terrorists' have a different motivation than e.g. the VC …

Something that always has to be remembered, in an insurgency. The locals guerillas know sooner or later the "invaders" will tire of losing blood & treasure. And leave … it just may take time. E.g. look at the French in Indochina, or the US and it's allies in Iraq, A'stan, etc.

Saying all that, for better or worse. Dragon was in the 82d and I in the 101, 2ID, 197th Mech, as I posted. Both Infantrymen too. So we do have some actual formal training, experiences, skills, etc.

So I don't mean to be disrespectful, looking for trouble, etc., but I don't know your military background or not, Eumelus. I like to know if I am talking to another Vet and hear about his experiences, training, etc.

I tend to give other Vets' comments a bit more veracity, credibility, etc. Don't get me wrong, everyone is entitled to an opinion. But some opinions carry more weight than others, IMO … Based again on training and experiences, etc.,.

And I'm always glad to meet another Vet no matter whose military he[or she] served in. Or just someone who shares the same interest in history and the military as I.

Eight years as an 11B, from E3 to O3. Please don't patronize me.

I too was an 11B then 11A for 10&1/2 years. I'm not patronizing you, I'm just glad to meet another 11B ! I too was an 03 …

I thought you may have been a Vet. 🤔

And again … not patronizing … just respect … One former Grunt to another.

I probably posted a lot of things you already know !

And again everybody is entitled to an opinion …

Forgive me if you thought I trying to be patronizing. I just don't want to step on any toes, etc.[and don't want to end up in the dog house again either!]…

OK, no prob. And for the record I agree with your description of infantry tactics, and I do definitely see a real role for LAVs. My point has been that the light tank concept, in particular, keeps getting invented in peacetime (all the way back to the 1930s), but keeps getting proved a mistake in wartime. Not that it probably matters – as "ROUW…" and "15mm and 28mm…" have pointed out, in all probability this will result in as many actual AFV as the last several iterations, i.e. none.

Besides, we are on the cusp of a largely robot-filled battlespace, where light infantry aren't going to need cannon to destroy strongpoints and MBTs.

Well I can agree with all that. And I think the new robots, drones, etc., tech will be part of the combined arms team. And with new tech comes some modifying of current doctrine, etc.

for the record I agree with your description of infantry tactics,

We have had similar training so, yes, we both would know Infantry tactics, combined arms, etc.

But it appears the Army may try again to get a Light AFV for the RDF. Regardless with a 10% Military and Vet Services cutbacks upcoming in the next year or two. Many things will be on the chopping block. So who knows ?

And yes more and more we are going to see more robots, drones, etc., on the future battlefield. I always have said, I would have liked a couple of T2s in each of my squads …

Just saying every unit now has drones. From Platoon up. most do not have them due to security unless they go to some far off place. The resent fighting in Armenia shows that everyone is equipped the same. Russia supplied their allies and turkey and Iran the other side. War has changed rapidly in the last 5 years. It is why the Marines felt the need to change the Squad and have a slot for a network specialist, so they have a drone operator at that level.
Think of it Squads armed with 2k drones (proven in use now) that can start the fire fight at 2k.

.

Why light AFV

From U.S. point of view Having Armor reduces Casualties.

From most other views Having Armor increases advance rates (winning)

If the other guy does not have Armor then each effect is increased.

"but the fact is that we will never take a Wehrmacht-style approach to insurgency."- Eumelus

I have another solution, we back one faction and give them enough support to wipe out an opposing faction. We make it clear to all parties involved they can have peace or be exterminated by their rivals. USA direct involvement and loss of life would be kept to a minimum. However you are right civilians would never condone a Draconian policy due to the collateral damage…

For the record with AHEM hindsight, I don't believe we should have ever gone into Iraq or Afghanistan.

"(Not that the Wehrmacht's approach to insurgency actually won…)"- Eumelus

The Wehrmacht was defeated by conventional forces.

" Dragon Gunner, how likely is it that these same tactical scenarios won't play out in the future?"- Eumelus

Can you predict the future? If the answer is no then don't make me justify my position!

"RDF isn't a valid concept anyway;"-Eumelus

You mentioned your military service I am curious is your background mechanized / armor? Have you spent any time in the RDF? Do you have any direct experience with RDF training missions? Are you suggesting the RDF has no strategic value?

"Not that it probably matters – as "ROUW…" and "15mm and 28mm…" have pointed out, in all probability this will result in as many actual AFV as the last several iterations, i.e. none."-Eumelus

Its called budget cuts! Not an endorsement of your opinion. If the funding is approved light tanks will be made.

"Besides, we are on the cusp of a largely robot-filled battlespace, where light infantry aren't going to need cannon to destroy strongpoints and MBTs."-Eumelus

And that is the most valid argument I have seen however we are not there yet…

LORDGHEE

:)

thanks Legion 4

As with every weapons system it has to be used in the correct and intended way. If a light tank is used as a heavy tank it will suffer badly. Just like infantry will suffer badly if used incorrectly.

All commanders must, at the very least, understand that just because it looks like a tank it is NOT a tank. Also the the light tank commander has the right to refuse certain orders if they are outside what light tanks are supposed to do.

No one (hopefully) would order infantry to run across an empty field in front of the enemy, if that order was issued most commander would probably refuse it. Same with light tanks, if an order is to attack a position head on the commander would simply say "nope".

With correct training and understanding of the weapons system those situations would be very very rare.

As I have said before, a weapon is only as good as it's trooper/crew + capable leadership.

soledad sorry there is no "right" to refuse an order in any military.

sometimes you have to order troops to do something stupid to get the job done.

refusing an order can get you shot on the spot even in the U.S. Army.

Well you may refuse an unlawful or illegal order, but you still may have to go thru CM produces, etc.,.

I think it's hard for people without experience of the military mindset especially in wartime to understand how inculcated obedience to authority actually is.

I've thought about the problem a good deal, but still don't pretend to understand how the military mind works.

Orders have to be obeyed. The whole system and culture is built to enforce that simple paradigm. If subordinates start thinking for themselves and deciding which orders to follow and which to ignore – the entire system would break down.

This sometimes leads to really bad things happening. We might like to imagine we would not have committed warcrimes had we been in certain situations but I'd bet 99.9% of us would have gone along with whatever was happening at the time.

Maybe I should clarify my opinion a bit. Yes orders have to be obeyed to a large extent, but, a junior officers or soldier can always voice ones opinion if something does not make sense.

At least in the Swedish army what is important is the commanders intent, not doing something exactly as ordered.

I´m not talking about refusing orders that are dangerous, war is dangerous, I'm talking about telling the officer giving an unnecessarily dangerous or stupid order that there are other ways of achieving the same result.

A funny incident occurs when the US forces arrived in Bosnia in 96 (?) as part of IFOR. They were met by a Swedish unit deployed there since 4 months. The US officer gave a direct order and the Swedish officer said "nah we'll do it this way", the US officer was flabbergasted and said "Swedish officers are the first ones I have ever met who interpret a direct order as a basis for discussion".

The Swedish unit hade been there for months, had intimate knowledge of the area and terrain and knew that what the US officer ordered was not "wrong" but stupid and that there was a better way of doing things. This is what I mean.

You get the mission accomplished in the correct timeframe but maybe not exactly as ordered. There are more than one way to skin a cat, some ways are better than others.

In all my military service and deployments I have always given an alternate suggestion if I felt that the commanders idea/order was not that good. If there is time of course. If there is no time and I either do as told or just do it my way as I interpret his intent of the mission.

Basically it is auftragstaktik in its core.

Always following orders to the letter are best left to communists and other failed people.

"No one (hopefully) would order infantry to run across an empty field in front of the enemy, if that order was issued most commander would probably refuse it. Same with light tanks, if an order is to attack a position head on the commander would simply say "nope"."

TMP link

Before anyone starts jumping up and down about light armor being worthless I could also tell stories about combined arms operations involving Sheridan's that were successful.

I think it's hard for people without experience of the military mindset especially in wartime to understand how inculcated obedience to authority actually is.

I've thought about the problem a good deal, but still don't pretend to understand how the military mind works.

Yes very much so. Many who have never served have little to no idea of much of what being in the military and soldiering is all about.

However, we in the, e.g. US ARMY all have been trained about what are war crimes. And not to let them happen. But even with that some very, very, small in number may and do occur. With e.g. 50,000 + troops on the ground there is a probability of some happening …

soledad +1

Dragon Gunner +1