A good point about combined arms

4 posts ยท Dec 3 1999 to Dec 4 1999

From: Tom B <kaladorn@g...>

Date: Fri, 3 Dec 1999 17:28:29 -0500

Subject: A good point about combined arms

> My buddy Los wrote:

Simple you stand behind or off to the side of the main gun or reamin in the
IFV. or take your chances. keep in mind that when you go into the final
assault when tanks are intermixed with infantry they are using MGs not main
guns. (though watch out if they see something that scares them.)

------
:)

In point of fact, that is pretty much it. Heck, even HW can pose a danger to
other grunts. Generally, you try to avoid backblast areas and the front end of
RRs and GMS systems. And Tanks. But... life being what it is and combat being
what it is... sometimes it don't work out that way and you take your chances.
Tanks in an urban setting need to be CLOSELY escorted by infantry. Or perhaps
even preceeded by same. It's too easy for a tank to die in an urban setting.
So infantry protect them. In turn, they are a mobile pillbox with MGs and 20mm
cannons. But as Los said, if they see another tank or an AT artillery piece,
they'll go *BANG* with the Main Cannon without worrying too much about the
nearby Grunts' sensibilities. It's risky being an ant... but on the other
hand, you're small enough you don't generally
attract as much attention - tanks are targets for all manner of mines,
AT systems, planes, other tanks, etc.

Combat isn't exactly safe, we just take steps to make it no more of a risk
than it must be. Then again, even those protocols get chucked in
extremis. In a close-in, knock-down-drag-out... there aren't many
rules. If I'm an infantry commander and I have a CEV with a 165mm Demo
Howitzer backing me up... great. If I get a flampanzer... good too. I take
what I can get, and I try to get it to support me and I try to keep it safe.
It's what *teamwork* is all about. Whoever does it
better, is better trained, and gets some luck - they generally write
the historical accounts. The other side writes the dear-John
letters....

From: Los <los@c...>

Date: Fri, 03 Dec 1999 21:40:03 -0500

Subject: Re: A good point about combined arms

> kaladorn@fox.nstn.ca wrote:

> Combat isn't exactly safe, we just take steps to make it no more of a

Glad you mentioned this point. No matter how good, how technically superior,
how inferior the enemy is, how much support you, have how much training you
have, how well planned everything is, how squared away your
buddies...commanders...sergeants are, you will never lower the risk anywhere
near what most ordinary people will consider an acceptable level. You just
gotta say "fuck it" and move out.

From: Michael Brown <mwbrown@s...>

Date: Fri, 3 Dec 1999 22:34:44 -0800

Subject: RE: A good point about combined arms

Wasn't there a quote, " a rational army would run away "

Michael Brown

[quoted original message omitted]

From: Craig Summers <craigs@t...>

Date: Sat, 04 Dec 1999 13:37:50 +0000

Subject: Re: A good point about combined arms

> Michael Brown wrote:

The way my morale rolls go I must have the most rational lead figures in the
world:).