Rumsfeld kills "Crusader"

[Tingkai]

This may sound like a stupid question to all you military experts, but why would you want eight shells to fall on exactly the same spot at the same time? Is this really a battlefield necessity or is it just a toy that proves the Crusader could do it even if it is never needed? Can a re-inforced bunker withstand eight shells hitting it one after another?

[David Floyd]

8 shells falling at once are good because they don't give soldiers time to seek cover.

For example, in counterbattery fire, you're trying to kill the gunners as much as destroying the guns, so you don't want to give them time to seek cover.

[Tingkai]

Originally posted by Lonestar
I choose "E", kill Amtrak, use it to pay for both.

Nice dodge. But if you only have the four option available, which do you choose.

My point is that there is an opportunity cost in buying the Crusader. Is it worth the price.

Originally posted by Lonestar
Anywho, during the Gulf War it was a big deal that the Paladin's couldn't keep pace with the Coalition's advance, there was a worry that the Iraqis could have chewed up the coalition if there wasn't any artillary support availible. (In fact, lots of people point out that the reason why Iraqi tanks were so ineffective was because they used Iraqi-made ammo. Course, Artillary is way the hell more useful on Infantry than tanks...)

The Paladin has a top speed of 38 mph. The Crusader's top speed is 42 mph, according to one military website.

Would four mph make much of a difference?

Another site puts the Paladin top speed at 40 mph.

Also the Paladin fires at rate of 8 rounds per minute.

[Tingkai]

Originally posted by David Floyd
8 shells falling at once are good because they don't give soldiers time to seek cover.

For example, in counterbattery fire, you're trying to kill the gunners as much as destroying the guns, so you don't want to give them time to seek cover.

But wouldn't the same effect be achieved by using a battery of Paladins?

[joseph1944]

Originally posted by Tingkai


But wouldn't the same effect be achieved by using a battery of Paladins?

In two min. a Crusader can fire 24 rounds. It would take 3 Paladins to do the same. Think what would happen if you had 3 Crusader (36 rpm vs 24 rpm). Fire power mean everything on the battle field. A little faster speed, maybe a little more range for the gun, it can shoot faster and it is fully automatic. Plus a crew of 2 instead of 4 for the Paladin.

[David Floyd]

Exactly.

[mindseye]

In two min. a Crusader can fire 24 rounds. It would take 3 Paladins to do the same. Think what would happen if you had 3 Crusader (36 rpm vs 24 rpm). Fire power mean everything on the battle field. A little faster speed, maybe a little more range for the gun, it can shoot faster and it is fully automatic. Plus a crew of 2 instead of 4 for the Paladin.

Remember, these advantages really amount to nothing except in those instances in which aircraft are grounded due to weather or other conditions -- conditions, I might add, which do not also prevent Crusaders (likely to be air-delivered) from reaching the battlefield. All this talk of the Crusader's relative advantages fail to take this key fact into account.

In the last several major military engagements the US has fought, Crusaders, for all their cost, would have made little or no difference at all. This does not mean that they will never be useful in the future, but it's telling considering the differences in adversaries we have faced (e.g. Iraq vs. Taliban/Al Quaeda).

--------------------

Seems to me these are the salient points:

(a) Mobile artillery still has a role, but it's been much diminished by the (astonishing) increase in accuracy of air-delivered guided munitions, which can also be delivered for a fraction of the cost

(b) Unlike aircraft, mobile artillery are not grounded in poor weather, however this would seem to be to a large degree offset by the slow deployment time and other logistical difficulties in getting useful numbers of SPA within firing range of an enemy on another continent (i.e. rapid deployment is nearly impossible with such large vehicles).

(c) For its basic mission, the existing system can still successfully fulfill the same function, at least against any adversary the military is likely to encounter.

(d) Resources are not unlimited.


Conclusion: While the Crusader is certainly superior to the Palladin, it is only marginally so. In the face of the diminished usefulness of SPA in general, it doesn't appear to make much sense (at least to to me) to spend much-needed funding on a new weapons system of such limited utility.

[David Floyd]

I agree that we should not get the Crusader, but I disagree that it would be useless - I oppose its acquisition on the grounds that it would be useful and a possible encouragement to going to war.

[mindseye]

but I disagree that it would be useless

Did anyone here say it would be useless?

The real point is that it would be only marginally more useful than the existing system. That margin of increased usefulness does not seem worth the cost, especially in light of recent advances in air-delivered munitions.

[Lonestar]

Originally posted by Tingkai


Nice dodge. But if you only have the four option available, which do you choose.

My point is that there is an opportunity cost in buying the Crusader. Is it worth the price.

[Captain Kirk mode on] I don't believe in no win scenarios[/mode off]

I think it's worth the price.

The Paladin has a top speed of 38 mph. The Crusader's top speed is 42 mph, according to one military website.

Would four mph make much of a difference?

I seem to recall that the Paladin's top speed was signifigantly less than that...are you sure you're not thinking of Kilometers?

Another site puts the Paladin top speed at 40 mph.

Also the Paladin fires at rate of 8 rounds per minute.

The Paladin can fire 8 rounds a minute the first minute...asssuming it's in cold weather. It doesn't have a very good barrelcooling system.

[mindseye]

I think it's worth the price.

A better use of the funds would be to try to track down some of the radioactive material (including plutonium) which various US agencies have "lost track of".

[faded glory]

**** precise artillery man. Have any one of you guys watch cluster munitions go off??? All you need is a few of those, nothing will survive. They chew through tanks, Bunkers, and turn foam dummies into gew.

[Lonestar]

Originally posted by mindseye

I think it's worth the price.

A better use of the funds would be to try to track down some of the radioactive material (including plutonium) which various US agencies have "lost track of".

Yeah, okay, that's a pretty good use of funds.

I also think another good use of funds would be sealing the holes in our system that aloud nuclear secrets be sent the the Red Chinese.

[TCO]

Originally posted by mindseye


Remember, these advantages really amount to nothing except in those instances in which aircraft are grounded due to weather or other conditions -- conditions, I might add, which do not also prevent Crusaders (likely to be air-delivered) from reaching the battlefield. All this talk of the Crusader's relative advantages fail to take this key fact into account.

Read Sikander's remarks. Independant of weather concerns, guns have an advantage in terms of putting more ordnance on target.

[Tingkai]

Originally posted by Lonestar
I seem to recall that the Paladin's top speed was signifigantly less than that...are you sure you're not thinking of Kilometers?

Yes, it is mph.

see this site:

http://www.dtic.mil/armylink/news/Mar1997/a19970303paladin.html

But that's top speed. I don't know what the speed comparisons are for moving cross-country.