DOCSLIB.ORG

All Together at Fort Irwin

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
All Together at Fort Irwin In a desert arena nearly the size of Rhode Island, they exercise the AirLand Battle in realistic fashion. All Together at Fort Irwin BY JEFFREY P. RHODES, AERONAUTICS EDITOR PHOTOS BY GUY ACETO, ART DIRECTOR HREE hours after the dawn bat- T tle began, the fight is coming to a close. The 2d Brigade of the US Army's 2d Armored Division has made a valiant stand, but now it is being overwhelmed by the Soviet 32d Guards Motorized Rifle Reg- iment. Both sides are suffering heavy ca- sualties. On the US side, the 2d has lost eight of its original eleven MI Abrams tanks, twenty-six of forty- one M2 Bradley Fighting Vehicles, and most of its ten M901 Improved TOW antitank vehicles. The Soviet unit also is getting mauled, having lost twenty-one of forty-eight T-72 tanks, sixty of 106 BMP infantry fighting vehicles, and five of nine Above, the battle begins: At first light, a Blue Air 0A-10 pilot (one of the "good guys") BRDM-2 antitank vehicles. prepares for takeoff at George AFB, Calif., a short hop away from the training ranges at Fort Irwin. At right, the battle ends: After a hard morning of engaging BLUFOR In spite of their losses, however, tanks, OPFOR "bad guys" Capt. Robert Byars (commander), Pvt. Ronald Thomas the Soviet troops move within reach (gunner), and Sgt. Andrew Speer (driver) keep a wary eye on the battle's progress. of their objective—a facility that OPFOR is the home team at Irwin. houses the 2d Brigade's fuels and supplies. Then, having punched a gaping hole in the US line with help from MiG-29 aircraft, Soviet at- tackers pour through the gap, ad- vancing rapidly. "OK," a voice crackles on the ra- dio. "Change of mission." Forces on both sides grind to a halt. 38 AIR FORCE Magazine / December 1989 g A PRETTY typical battle out ing Squadron at George AFB, Calif. and first contact with the Soviet- PI here," says Lt. Col. James "All the players are in place to pro- style opposing force, or "OPFOR." Etchechury, the Deputy Regimental vide that environment, both in con- "The kindest thing you can say Commander of the "Soviet" 32d cert and separately, like no place about [troops of] the OPFOR is that Guards. The Colonel, who is actu- else." they are an uncooperative sparring ally Commander of the US Army's partner," says Colonel Knight. In- 1st Battalion, 63d Armored, means The Starting Lineups deed the "bad guys" are the home that it is a typical battle at the Na- Two Army battalion task forces, team at the NTC. It is a rare occa- tional Training Center at Fort Irwin, their brigade headquarters, and ac- sion when they lose a battle, al- Calif. companying combat support forces though keeping track of wins and Fort Irwin, home of the National are the "good guys" in each of the Training Center (NTC), covers near- fourteen training periods (called ly 640,000 acres of the blistering "rotations") held annually at the Mojave Desert, an area nearly the NTC. The 3,500 to 5,000 troops size of Rhode Island. The NTC is being trained (known as the Blue the Army's ultimate training experi- Force, or BLUFOR) usually fly to ence, the closest the participants nearby Norton AFB, Calif., and are can come to war without firing a bused to Fort Irwin. Some airborne shot in anger. Units spend up to a units make a flashier entrance, year preparing for their fourteen dropping in by parachute. days in the field at Fort Irwin. The first three days of a rotation Though the NTC's main task is to are spent in the Dust Bowl, an area give highly realistic training to where the BLUFOR troops set up Army brigades and regiments, the tents and draw food, ammunition, Center also plays an important role tanks, and other gear and supplies. in Air Force training plans. Rather than waste time and money "The NTC provides pilots and bringing their own assigned vehi- ALOs [Air Liaison Officers] with cles, BLUFOR units use a "rent-a- the most realistic CAS [close air tank" operation at the post, similar support] environment in the US," to drawing on prepositioned war- says Lt. Col. Duane Knight, Com- time stocks that are held in Europe. mander of the 4443d Tactical Train- Day 4 marks the start of the action The OPFOR takes the offensive: M551 Sheridan tanks modified to look like Soviet T-72 main battle tanks (top) and BMP armored personnel carriers (above) roll out to take on the defending BLUFOR. In many of the battles, the OPFOR has a large numerical advantage, a situation US tank commanders could face in a European war. 40 AIR FORCE Magazine December 1989 losses is not deemed important. The two forms—in the air and on the Army commander orders to saying OPFOR is actually the 177th Ar- ground. The flying program is called what the pilots need to hear" mored Brigade, but for the purposes "Air Warrior." During each rota- Some participants in the battles of the units that train at Fort Irwin, it tion, three Air Force units deploy are not really participants at all. is a Soviet Motorized Rifle Reg- aircraft to George to provide air They are the observer controllers iment. support during the battles. Typ- (0Cs), who play several roles. The OPFOR is thoroughly ically, the Blue Force at Irwin will There are at least three groups of trained in Soviet tactics and doc- be supported by crews flying seven OCs at any battle. One group (radio trine. Troops even wear Soviet-style A-10s for close air support and four call sign "Scorpion") monitors the uniforms. They ride into battle on OV-10s or 0A-10s as forward air infantry, while the "Cobras" American M551 Sheridan light controllers (FACs). The OPFOR's monitor the armor. The third group, tanks modified with fiberglass and air support comes in the form of five the "Ravens," is the second Air aluminum panels to resemble Sovi- pilots whose F-16s are used to rep- Force element in the ground war. et T-72s, BMPs, and ZSU-23-4 mo- resent MiG-29s. The Ravens, members of the Air bile antiaircraft guns. The units also The Air Force ground element in Force's 4445th ITS, serve as air op- use "Hummers" (M998 high mobili- the training at Fort Irwin comes in erations monitors. ty multipurpose wheeled vehicles, the form of ALOs assigned to spe- During engagements, OCs act as or HMMWVs) modified to repre- cific armored units. The ALOs are referees and have the power to de- sent the Soviet BRDM-2. the eyes and ears of the fighter pilots clare a tank or vehicle "dead" if the Army training doesn't take place and are the ones who plan for and crew strays out-of-bounds or suffers just on the ground. Units with avia- call in air strikes or provide last- a malfunction of scoring equipment. tion assets such as Bell OH-58 minute targeting information to the They also help ensure the safety of Kiowa scout helicopters, Bell AH-1 incoming fighters. the operations. After the battle, the Cobra gunships, and McDonnell "I have to have a good under- OCs coach the crews and help them Douglas AH-64 Apache attack heli- standing of the maneuvers and the evaluate their performance. copters regularly take part in the battle as it takes place," says Capt. BLUFOR combined arms team. Dave Brown, a 24th Tactical Air Eating Dust The OPFOR uses a pair of visually Support Squadron 0A-37 pilot who, During a rotation, the two modified Bell UH-1H Hueys to sim- as an ALO, is assigned to the 2d BLUFOR battalion task forces are ulate the actions of Mi-24 "Hind" Armored. "I am talking to the pilots trained separately and as a group. assault helicopters. all the time. Because I am a pilot, I While separated, one task force USAF involvement at NTC takes can go right from hearing what the moves to the NTC's northern cor- When their vehicle's amber strobe light goes on (under the machine gun), a crew has gone from being participants to being spectators with front-row seats at the battle. This BLUFOR M1 crew has been "killed" (as scored by the Loral MILES equipment) and is watching and waiting until "change of mission" is called. The MILES gear emits and receives laser pulses to simulate live rounds, and it has a "kill" hierarchy: an M16 can only "kill" infantry, while a main tank gun can "kill" nearly anything. AIR FORCE Magazine / December 1989 41 The targets can also "shoot back" defend from battle position, and through the use of Hoffman charges meeting engagement. Force ratios that produce a flash and smoke sim- between the OPFOR and the ilar to the firing of the main tank BLUFOR imitate, in numbers and gun. Other targets really do shoot types of equipment, what one might back. Styrofoam GTR-18 Smokey expect to see in a European conflict. SAMs—or, in the words of the Battles tend to flow from one day troops, "Nerf Rockets"—are actu- to the next. After the battle in which ally fired up and in the direction of the 2d Armored was defeated, for the BLUFOR vehicles to simulate instance, the OPFOR stopped, re- the Soviet AT-3 "Sagger" antitank grouped, moved to another part of missile. the central corridor, and dug in to The deployed Air Force units also defend its position.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Projected Acquisition Costs for the Army's Ground Combat Vehicles
    Projected Acquisition Costs for the Army’s Ground Combat Vehicles © MDart10/Shutterstock.com APRIL | 2021 At a Glance The Army operates a fleet of ground combat vehicles—vehicles intended to conduct combat opera- tions against enemy forces—and plans to continue to do so. Expanding on the Army’s stated plans, the Congressional Budget Office has projected the cost of acquiring such vehicles through 2050. Those projections include costs for research, development, test, and evaluation (RDT&E) and for procurement but not the costs of operating and maintaining the vehicles. CBO’s key findings are as follows: • Total acquisition costs for the Army’s ground combat vehicles are projected to average about $5 billion per year (in 2020 dollars) through 2050—$4.5 billion for procurement and $0.5 billion for RDT&E. • The projected procurement costs are greater (in constant dollars) than the average annual cost for such vehicles from 2010 to 2019 but approximately equal to the average annual cost from 2000 to 2019 (when spending was boosted because of operations in Iraq). • More than 40 percent of the projected acquisition costs of Army ground combat vehicles are for Abrams tanks. • Most of the projected acquisition costs are for remanufactured and upgraded versions of current vehicles, though the Army also plans to acquire an Optionally Manned Fighting Vehicle, which will replace the Bradley armored personnel carrier; an Armored Multi-Purpose Vehicle, which will replace the M113 armored personnel carrier; and a new Mobile Protected Firepower tank, which will be lighter than an Abrams tank. • The Army is also considering developing an unmanned Decisive Lethality Platform that might eventually replace Abrams tanks.
    [Show full text]
  • FEBRUARY/MARCH 2017. Issue 01
    FEBRUARY/MARCH 2017. Issue 01. READY FOR WHEREVER YOUR MISSION TAKES YOU ELAMS TOC: The ELAMS TOC Primary mission is to provide effective, reliable space for execution of battlefield C4I. MECC® Shower/Latrine: The AAR MECC® is a fully customizable ISO that allows you to mobilize your mission. SPACEMAX® The SPACEMAX® shelter provides lightweight, durable solutions for rapidly deployable space that reduces costs and risk. 2 armadainternational.com - february/march 2017 MADE IN armadainternational.com - february/march 2017 3 www.AARMobilitySystems.com THE USA FEBRUARY/MARCH 2017 www.armadainternational.com 08 AIR POWER COST VERSUS CREDIBILITY Andrew Drwiega examines maritime patrol aircraft procurement, and the options available for air forces and navies on a budget. 14 20 26 LAND Warfare TURING STIRLING CLASS WAR CATCH-22 VEHICLES FOR CHANGE Stephen W. Miller examines how the designs of Thomas Withington examines the Link-22 tactical Andrew White uncovers some of the latest light armoured vehicles are changing around data link, its workings and what it heralds for advances in vehicle technology to help the world. tomorrow’s naval operations. commandos reach their objectives. 32 38 FUTURE TECHNOLOGIES SEA POWER 44 THE MAN WHO FELL TO EARTH WHAT LIES BENEATH LAND Warfare Parachute technology is over a century old and is Warship definitions are becoming increasingly PREVENTION IS BETTER THAN CURE being continually refined, thanks to advances in blurred due to technological advances. Are we Claire Apthorp explores some of the innovative design and manufacturing, Peter Donaldson moving towards the multipurpose combatant, asks methods being adopted for military vehicle finds out. Dr.
    [Show full text]
  • The Army's M-1 Abrams, M-2/M-3 Bradley, and M-1126 Stryker: Background and Issues for Congress
    The Army’s M-1 Abrams, M-2/M-3 Bradley, and M-1126 Stryker: Background and Issues for Congress (name redacted) Specialist in Military Ground Forces April 5, 2016 Congressional Research Service 7-.... www.crs.gov R44229 The Army’s M-1 Abrams, M-2/M-3 Bradley, and M-1126 Stryker Summary The M-1 Abrams Tank, the M-2/M-3 Bradley Fighting Vehicle (BFV), and the M-1126 Stryker Combat Vehicle are the centerpieces of the Army’s Armored Brigade Combat Teams (ABCTs) and Stryker Brigade Combat Teams (SBCTs). In addition to the military effectiveness of these vehicles, Congress is also concerned with the economic aspect of Abrams, Bradley, and Stryker recapitalization and modernization. Due to force structure cuts and lack of Foreign Military Sales (FMS) opportunities, Congress has expressed a great deal of concern with the health of the domestic armored combat vehicle industrial base. ABCTs and SBCTs constitute the Army’s “heavy” ground forces; they provide varying degrees of armored protection and mobility that the Army’s light, airborne (parachute), and air assault (helicopter transported) infantry units that constitute Infantry Brigade Combat Teams (IBCTs) do not possess. These three combat vehicles have a long history of service in the Army. The first M-1 Abrams Tank entered service with the Army in 1980; the M-2/M-3 Bradley Fighting Vehicle in 1981; and the Stryker Combat Vehicle in 2001. Under current Army modernization plans, the Army envisions all three vehicles in service with Active and National Guard forces beyond FY2028. There are several different versions of these vehicles in service.
    [Show full text]
  • The Bradley Fighting Vehicle-The Troops Love It Just Like Its Partner-In
    The Bradley Fighting Vehicle-The Troops Love It Just like its partner-in-combat the Ml Abrams tank, the Army's new M2 Bradley Infantry Fighting Vehicle is rolling off the assembly line in grow­ ing numbers and finding an enthusias­ tic welcome in the units where it is be­ ing assigned. From the battalion com­ manders down to the squad leaders who fight from the Bradley there is high praise for its speed, agility, fire­ power and protection from artillery fragments and small caliber weapons. Also, just like the Abrams tank, the Bradley has been subject to a great deal of uninformed and polemical crit­ icism leading to its current less-than­ optimal press image. In truth, the Bradley, now fielded in 17 battalions, is a very successful piece of equip­ ment. It does what it was intended to do and does it very well. It deserves more objective treatment by the press and other critics who do not under­ stand its function. The Bradley exists to provide infan­ trymen and cavalry scouts a protected fighting platform on the battlefield where they function as partners of a combined-arms team, closely integrat­ ed with tanks, artillery, aviation and air defense weapons. For the first time our infantry soldiers can move into a new dimension-aboard a protective vehicle from which they can fight the enemy, with the firepower, agility and speed which assures continuous effec­ tiveness on a modern battlefield. This is not just a matter of getting the infantry to the battle. It is the de­ mand that infantry and tanks fight to­ gether, that both be there offering their strengths and protecting the oth­ er's weaknesses.
    [Show full text]
  • Army Transformation and Modernization: Overview and Issues for Congress
    Order Code RS20787 Updated March 11, 2004 CRS Report for Congress Received through the CRS Web Army Transformation and Modernization: Overview and Issues for Congress nae redacted Specialist in National Defense Foreign Affairs, Defense, and Trade Division Summary The U.S. Army continues an ambitious program intended to transform itself into a strategically responsive force dominant in all types of ground operations. As planned, its Future Force will eventually meld all ongoing initiatives into a force based on a high- tech Future Combat System (FCS). Its Current Force is beginning to provide a new combat capability, based on current-technology armored vehicles, for the mid-intensity combat operations that seem prevalent in today’s world. Its current “legacy force” of existing systems is being modernized and maintained to ensure effective light and heavy force capabilities until the Future Force is realized. This short report briefly describes the program and discusses issues of feasibility, viability, and affordability of potential interest to Congress. It will be updated as events warrant. Background Modernization is not a new issue or objective for U.S. military forces, but it has taken on new urgency because of: the post-Cold War downsizing and procurement reductions, the new global environment and unexpected requirements, and the promise of a “revolution in military affairs” (RMA) suggested by rapid developments in computers, communications, and guidance systems. The last notable surge in modernization culminated during the “Reagan build-up” of the 1980's. Weapons and doctrines developed and fielded in that era made fundamental contributions to United States successes in the Cold War, the Gulf War, and Kosovo.
    [Show full text]
  • NSIAD-90-172 Bradley Vehicle: Status of the Army's Survivability Enhancement Program
    United States General Accounting Office Report to theI - Honorable GAO Barbara Boxer, House of Representatives May 1990 BRADLEYVEHICLE Status of the Army’s Survivability Enhancement Progrm -- GAO,‘NSlAD9O-172 United States General Accounting Office GAO Washington, D.C. 20648 National Security and International Affairs Division B-221733 May 21,199O The Honorable Barbara Boxer House of Representatives Bear Ms. Boxer: This report responds to your request that we provide you with informa- tion on the current status of the Army’s modification program for enhancing the survivability of the Bradley Fighting Vehicle. We briefed your staff on the results of our work on March 5, 1990. As a result of live-fire testing conducted between March 1985 and Results in Brief May 1987, the Army is incorporating a number of survivability enhance- ments into a new Bradley high-survivability configuration referred to as the “A2 model.” This model will be produced in two versions: the Infantry Fighting Vehicle (IFV) and the Cavalry Fighting Vehicle (WV). Enhancements will include (1) the addition of armor to provide protec- tion against 30-mm projectiles, (2) the addition of liners inside the turret to protect the crew from high-velocity debris (spall) resulting from rounds’ penetrating the crew compartment, (3) the addition of armor to protect against antitank chemical energy weapons (this armor is to be provided to field troops when it is developed), (4) changes in the way fuel and ammunition are internally stored, and (5) changes to the vehi- cle’s automatic fire extinguishing system. Because of the weight increases associated with these changes, the Army is upgrading the Bradley power train with a 600-horsepower engine and a modified transmission.
    [Show full text]
  • Military Spending and Arms Sales in the Gulf
    burke chair in strategy Military Spending and Arms Sales in the Gulf How the Arab Gulf States Now Dominate the Changes in the Military Balance By Anthony H. Cordesman with the assistance of Michael Peacock April 28, 2015 Request for comments: This report is a draft that will be turned into an electronic book. Comments and suggested changes would be greatly appreciated. Please send any comments to Anthony H. Cordsman, Arleigh A. Burke Chair in Strategy, at [email protected]. ANTHONY H. CORDESMAN Arleigh A. Burke Chair in Strategy [email protected] Cordesman, Peacock: Gulf National Security Balance 24.4.15 Rev 15:00 2 Table of Contents I. INTRODUCTION .......................................................................................................................................................................................4 II. MILITARY EXPENDITURES ...........................................................................................................................................................................6 THE INTERNATIONAL INSTITUTE OF STRATEGIC STUDIES (IISS) ESTIMATES ............................................................................................................................... 6 THE STOCKHOLM INTERNATIONAL PEACE RESEARCH INSTITUTE (SIPRI) ESTIMATES .................................................................................................................. 6 MILITARY SPENDING AS A PERCENT OF GDP AND COMPARATIVE GDP ..................................................................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • The Bradley Fighting Vehicle
    TOW anti-tank missiles for great distance and firing accura- The Bradley cy (up to 4km), in addition to ammunition for each piece of artillery. Bradleys can travel up to 40mph on ground, and 2.5mph in water via attached inflatable barrier. It takes up Fighting Vehicle to thirty minutes to be deployed as an amphibious vehicle. The Bradley Fighting Vehicle (BFV), commonly known as the “Bradley,” is a tracked armored vehicle for transporting A Success in Today’s Battlefield/ troops to critical battlefield points, providing fire coverage A Failure in Efficient Research and for dismounting troops, and delivering offensive attack ca- Development pability at enemy armored vehicles and troops. There are two models of the Bradley used for army ground opera- Although the Bradley destroyed many enemy tanks and tions: the M2 Infantry Fighting Vehicle (IFV), designed for experienced fairly low rates of casualty in the First Gulf troop transport, and the M3 Cavalry Fighting Vehicle (CFV), War and the Iraq War, the vehicle’s recent battlefield per- deployed for reconnaissance missions and tank combat. Of formance was not acquired through efficient planning and the Bradleys that have been built through the mid-1990s, project management. The origins of the modern Bradley 4,671 are IFVs and 2,083 are CFVs. span decades of troubled development; the involvement of many stakeholders; inflexible and questionable require- Both models of the Bradley (M2/M3) carry an identical ments; a failure of contractors to make design tradeoffs three-man crew, comprised of a gunner and commander in for fear of losing capability; billions of dollars in R&D costs; the turret, and a driver seated under a hatch, in the front and numerous Congressional interventions, including hull.
    [Show full text]
  • (AVF0005) 1 Written Evidence Submitted by Brigadier
    (AVF0005) Written evidence submitted by Brigadier (Retired) BW Barry OBE Senior Fellow Land Warfare International Institute for Strategic Studies (IISS) INQUIRY INTO BRITISH ARMOURED VEHICLE CAPABILITY HCDC is conducting an inquiry that “will focus on the procurement and use of Armoured Fighting Vehicles (AFVs) and ask whether more must be done to ensure the Army’s ability to deploy an armoured division.”i This submission provides analysis to assist in answering this question and subordinate questions including: - “Whether the Army is currently on track to be able to field the Strike Brigades and armoured division in line with the recommendations of the 2015 SDSR”. - “Whether the Army will be able to match the potential threat posed by peer adversaries by 2025” - The 13 more detailed questions listed at the Call for evidence.ii It is based on IISS analysis of global armoured warfare capabilities published in the annual IISS Military Balance and data held in the Military Balance+ database, as well as a strong body of analysis of recent, current, and future wars and the roles of AFVs in conflict. It does not look beyond 2030. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Armoured warfare is a capability of great relevance, both currently and in the future. Based on data held by the Military Balance+ database, some 250,000 AFVs are in service globally. Most current British Army AFVs are either obsolete or approaching obsolescence. Together with the introduction of the Ajax and Boxer AFVs, the Army’s plans to upgrade Challenger and Warrior have the potential for a transformational enhancement to British armoured warfare capabilities.
    [Show full text]
  • Steel Beasts Recognition Guide
    Steel Beasts Recognition Guide By James Sterrett Andrew Romaniuk Ssnake Tankboy Vasiliy Fofanov PDF Formatting by Burner Table of Contents U.S. Vehicles Page M1A1 Abrams MBT 3 M2A2 Bradley IFV 5 M113 APC 7 M113 Medivac 9 M901 ITV 11 M981 FIST-V 13 HMMWV (Hummer) 15 German Vehicles Leopard 2A4 MBT 19 Marder 1A3 IFV 21 M113 Artillery Spotter 23 Truck 25 Jaguar 2 ATGM Veh 27 Soviet Vehicles T80U MBT 30 T72BV MBT 32 BMP-1 IFV 34 BMP-2 IFV 36 BMD-2 IFV 38 BTR-80 APC 40 BRDM-2 ATGM Veh 42 BRDM-2 Recce 44 MT-LB 46 2 U.S. Vehicles 3 FRONT SIDE TOP M1A1HA MBT Crew: 4 Armament: 120mm cannon, 7.62mm coax MG, 12.7mm AA MG, 7.62mm A MG Ammunition: 40 x 120mm; 1,000 x 12.7mm; 11,400 x 7.62mm Armour Protection: max approx. 1300mm vs HEAT, approx. 650mm vs KE Armour Type: Chobham and steel Length: 9.845 meters Width: 3.657 meters Height: 2.375 meters Combat Weight: 62.6 tons Engine: Textron Lycoming AGT 1500 gas turbine Max Road Speed: 67 km/h Max Water Speed: sinks [can ford 1.219m, or 1.98 with preparation] Max Cruising Range: 498 km One of the stars of our show! Like the Leopard 2, the M1 was undertaken after the MBT-70 project collapsed in disarray. Also like the Leopard 2, the used a combination of advances in armor and powerplants to deliver a notably advanced vehicle, once teething troubles were ironed out.
    [Show full text]
  • Manifestations of the Egyptian Army's Actions in the US Army's 1976
    Journal of Military and Strategic VOLUME 19, ISSUE 1 Studies Manifestations of the Egyptian Army’s Actions in the US Army’s 1976 Edition of FM 100-5 Operations Dr. Tal Tovy During the years in which the United States has been entangled in the land war in South-East Asia, the Soviet Union has significantly increased its conventional forces, as well as acquired new weapon systems in the air and on the ground. Against these processes, the United States needed a new doctrine for warfighting against the Warsaw Pact forces in Central Europe. The existing doctrine stipulated that the NATO forces would stop the Warsaw Pact armoured mass and then launch a counterattack. However, if the conventional containment failed, the NATO forces would have to resort to tactical nuclear weapons. It was clear that the use of nuclear weapons would bring about the total destruction of Western Germany, as well as an escalation of the war and massive mutual destruction. Thus, the American strategists, together with the strategic planners of other NATO countries, have looked for ways to contest the conventional ©Centre of Military and Strategic Studies, 2018 ISSN : 1488-559X JOURNAL OF MILITARY AND STRATEGIC STUDIES soviet military power, both quantitatively and qualitatively, while avoiding the use of nuclear weapons. 1 Following the American involvement in Vietnam Army Chief of Staff, General Creighton Abrahams, led dramatic reforms in the US Army. The mighty task to make reforms in the Army was allocated to the Training and Doctrine Command (TRADOC), a new command formed in 1973. This was the year that a new war broke out in the Middle East – the Yom Kippur War, 6-24 October, 1973.
    [Show full text]
  • GAO-21-361, Military Vehicles: Army and Marine Corps Should Take
    United States Government Accountability Office Report to Congressional Requesters July 2021 MILITARY VEHICLES Army and Marine Corps Should Take Additional Actions to Mitigate and Prevent Training Accidents GAO-21-361 July 2021 MILITARY VEHICLES Army and Marine Corps Should Take Additional Actions to Mitigate and Prevent Training Accidents Highlights of GAO-21-361, a report to congressional requesters Why GAO Did This Study What GAO Found Tactical vehicles are used to train The number of serious accidents involving Army and Marine Corps tactical military personnel and to achieve a vehicles, such as tanks and trucks, and the number of resulting deaths, variety of missions. Both the Army and fluctuated from fiscal years 2010 through 2019 (see figure). Driver Marine Corps have experienced inattentiveness, lapses in supervision, and lack of training were among the most tactical vehicle accidents that resulted common causes of these accidents, according to GAO analysis of Army and in deaths of military personnel during Marine Corps data. non-combat scenarios. GAO was asked to review issues Number of Army and Marine Corps Class A and B Tactical Vehicle Accidents and Resulting Military Deaths, Fiscal Years 2010 through 2019 related to the Army’s and Marine Corps’ use of tactical vehicles. Among other things, this report examines (1) trends from fiscal years 2010 through 2019 in reported Army and Marine Corps tactical vehicle accidents, deaths, and reported causes; and evaluates the extent to which the Army and Marine Corps have (2) taken steps to mitigate and prevent accidents during tactical vehicle operations; and (3) provided personnel with training to build the skills and experience needed to drive tactical vehicles.
    [Show full text]