Frankly the US already showed an excellent ability to destroy an enemy that attempted to stand toe to toe in open terrain in GW1.  It's the fighting in built up areas and difficult terrain that is most problematic.  It's an enemy platoon in a village or difficult higher ground.

 

 Above is another common Internet myth. The United States Army is in a protracted urban combat environment and has been every day for most of the decade. Yet there is no continuous flow of bodies or any trouble taking objectives. Every environment poses unique challenges to combatants. Urban environments are no different. Just like anywhere else, they require specific training. United States Army has that. Of course the urban environments reduced the engagement ranges and offer more cover and concealment of the enemy. I do not deny that and I do realize there's potential for higher casualties. However, that has not really been our experience. Again, because of the training of our soldiers and the awesome tools at our disposal.

-DA 

 

 

For a military (police too for that matter), handguns are at best a compromise between having something to bring to the gun fight and having nothing at all. They are defensive weapons by their very nature. Where, I do not think it was rational to replace the 1911 with a Baretta M92, now having done the deed way back in the 1980's it is not worth the time, money, and talents to go back again. There are allot of priorities we can spend those resources on. When it comes to getting performance from any gun, the only relevant factor is whether the subject was hit and after that where the subject was hit.  

 

If I thought a 200lb Viking was about to kick in my door, and had time to arm up with anything I own while calling in backup, I would not meet him at the door with any of my handguns. Given the opportunity, I would meet him with a necked center fire rifle or my Remington 870 12ga. pump stoked with buckshot. 

 

Humbly, the M9 may not be optimal, and certainly isn't my choice, but we have much bigger fish to fry here than going back to the old slab side.

 

Check Six

 

Rocky

How about standardizing on ONE attack helicopter platform? That the Army and Marines can not standarize is stupid! No one has yet been able to tell me why the Marines cant have Apache's.

 

For the SPA field gun, buy it from the Germans : the Pzh 2000 Panzerhaubitze Self-propelled Howitzer. This thing works.Yeah,yeah, I know its heavy, but its cheaper than developing NLOS!

 

These are 2 solutions that would be cheaper and still an upgrade. Congress seems to want to cut every thing military in spending.

 

Flyingarty

How about standardizing on ONE attack helicopter platform? That the Army and Marines can not standarize is stupid! No one has yet been able to tell me why the Marines cant have Apache's.

 

For the SPA field gun, buy it from the Germans : the Pzh 2000 Panzerhaubitze Self-propelled Howitzer. This thing works.Yeah,yeah, I know its heavy, but its cheaper than developing NLOS!

 

These are 2 solutions that would be cheaper and still an upgrade. Congress seems to want to cut every thing military in spending.

 

Flyingarty

Confuses his opinion with incontrovertible fact.....

 

Bulldozerkrig was NOT what won our wars, or won them entirely and I don't think it was required in Iraq.  We did not simply bury our opponents in fire and material....and simply burying the Iraqi's wasn't going to end an insurgency.

 

I will say US generalship is always going to be a degree derivative, though everyone's is, because unlike France or Prussia or Russia, we don't have a large military history....

History is not opinion, JFKY. 

When the US Army says in its own publications that its operational art (translation of the Russian term) is ripped off from Tukachevsky, I pay attention. 

 

Herald

 

History is not opinion, JFKY. 

 

to the dead Germans and Japanese killed by US Artillery, Darth.

 

Herald