Avatar feed
Responses: 9
MAJ Ken Landgren
5
5
0
Sometimes it's good to have a 70 ton vehicle to smash the enemy.
(5)
Comment
(0)
MAJ Ken Landgren
MAJ Ken Landgren
>1 y
You are pretty smart for knowing the nature of future wars. Did you predict we would fight two conventional wars against the Iraqis? For someone with no infantry or armor experience, you know a lot. The military brass is not always right despite the stars they have. What are the threats to the US military in general? A1C Ian Williams
(1)
Reply
(0)
A1C Ian Williams
A1C Ian Williams
>1 y
I will take that as a compliment, sir MAJ Ken Landgren Thank you, sir.
(0)
Reply
(0)
MAJ Ken Landgren
MAJ Ken Landgren
>1 y
You are delusional in the respect you know what is best for our ground troops and what future wars will look like.
(0)
Reply
(0)
LTC Eugene Chu
LTC Eugene Chu
>1 y
Tanks are necessary, but can be difficult to transport. Although we have contracted cargo ships for moving armor overseas, the US Navy may have difficulty moving them based on mission and fleet design
(0)
Reply
(0)
Avatar small
SSG Environmental Specialist
2
2
0
Good question, I know if I was a marine on the ground trying to take an Island from the chinese or whoever, I would like to have some fire power behind me when needed.
(2)
Comment
(0)
Avatar small
SMSgt Lawrence McCarter
1
1
0
Somehow I don't see any of that as a very smart move ! Armor and infantry are important and always have been and both are needed in combat operations. I'm surprised and shocked any military leadership member could be that poorly informed to think that either can be done without. To remove the combat capability of the Marines in that manner outright a stupid move !
(1)
Comment
(0)
LTC Eugene Chu
LTC Eugene Chu
>1 y
Armor and infantry are key, but they require specialized support. Not sure if a Navy fleet configuration has the ability to move tanks vs. lighter LAVs or Strykers
(1)
Reply
(0)
Avatar small

Join nearly 2 million former and current members of the US military, just like you.

close