Why not have elite forces for machines like tanks and jets? - Page 3




 
--
 
April 16th, 2005  
Sea_Cadet
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by WarMachine
This is more of what i'm talking about. In order to be successful in an operation, you need verstatility. The abrams is a good tank but not capable of everything. These lighter tanks would've been perfect for urban combat and special teams alike. I think the army sees that now in all the urban fighting that's been going on. Maybe the elite forces themselves would have marksmenship training for these circumstnaces.
Urban combat is for the merkava, and if you want a light tank with firepower you have that one south african tank, that I don't remember.
April 17th, 2005  
WarMachine
 
 
So are you guys saying this is unrealistic, or just plain foolish.
April 17th, 2005  
Kozzy Mozzy
 
It is unrealistic. Everything you people are describing is too expensive for a nation to maintain.
--
April 17th, 2005  
Sea_Cadet
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by WarMachine
So are you guys saying this is unrealistic, or just plain foolish.
I'm going both, because you're not saying the servicemen doing the job presently aren't elite, and you're degrading their talent.
April 17th, 2005  
WarMachine
 
 
No, that's not what i'm saying. They're good, of course they are, there's not been one tank lost in iraq so far, not completely. I'm saying that smaller more specialized units could perform some missions better than a standard battlegroup. Like how they use navy seals to blow up a strategic bridge rather than have the marines go and try to take it and sustain many casualties.
April 17th, 2005  
Kozzy Mozzy
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by WarMachine
No, that's not what i'm saying. They're good, of course they are, there's not been one tank lost in iraq so far, not completely. I'm saying that smaller more specialized units could perform some missions better than a standard battlegroup. Like how they use navy seals to blow up a strategic bridge rather than have the marines go and try to take it and sustain many casualties.
Yeah there have been plenty of tanks lost in Iraq.
April 17th, 2005  
Shadowalker
 
 
Its too expensive to have different types of tanks for different missions. Its easier to have just 1. If you want a special mission you leave it to special forces. I think possibly grouping the more experienced personnel into groups could provide more specialised units, but then you lose out on the younger personnel gaining the experience.
In jets you do already have fairly specialised units. F-22, eurofighter, rafale, F-117 etc. are flown by the best pilots and do the most challenging missions.
April 17th, 2005  
WarMachine
 
 
I'm beginning to see that elite armored units aren't realsitic unless you're doing a lot of tank fighting like in ww2. Otherwise it can be cost prohibitive as well as not living up to its potential. Maybe what we have now can do the job, but since none of us have used a tank in combat, we wouldn't know, oh well.

I still think it's a good idea.
April 17th, 2005  
Shadowalker
 
 
Yea, tanks have to be shifted by sea as well, and if you have specialist armoured units then they may be in the wrong place in the world for the crisis, and it would take to long to move them there, so the armoured regiments in place are going to have to do the task anyway, so its not worthwhile having a special unit
April 18th, 2005  
AussieNick
 
Stupid suggestion I say.

We have a system here in Australia where there is a STANDARD of training and equipment. Armoured regiments may use different vehicles (eg. M113, ASLAV, Abrams, Leopard etc), but the soldiers are trained to be equally as good as the next man. There should be no "elite" armoured regiments. They should all be trained to be the best in the world no matter what.

The only soldiers who can be called elite in Australia (and ever will be) are the SAS and 4RAR Commandos. Even the 3RAR Paras, Norforce and Navy Clearance Divers aren't considered to be "Elite" even though anywhere else in the world they would be considered exactly that.