Военная история → Heavy antiarmor units - integral members of the combined arms team or obsolete organizations
Посетители, находящиеся в группе Гости, не могут оставлять комментарии к данной публикации.
Название: Heavy antiarmor units - integral members of the combined arms team or obsolete organizations
Автор: Major John M. Peppers
Издательство: United States Army Command and General Staff College
Размер: 12 Мб
Для сайта: eKnigi.org
This monograph explores the US Army's position on the twentieth century warfare phenomena of armor versus antiarmor. From WWII through the end of the Cold War, debate over the degree to which antiarmor organization have been necessary to conduct successful combined arm mechanized warfare, has been a major and divisive issues for the US Army. This monograph focuses on the historical, theoretical and current aspects of that debate. US Army decisions on antiarmor material, organizational design and doctrine are reviewed. The monograph examines the record of the Antiarmor Company of the mechanized infantry battalion, from the late 1970s to today. Comparisons and contrasts are drawn with the historical and current antiarmor forces of the British, German and Russian armies. Emerging antiarmor trends and technologies are assessed. The monograph uses specific criteria derived from contemporary definition of combined arms warfare and organizational design, to analyze the US Army's current and future need for heavy antiarmor companies. The monograph establishes that historically US antiarmor material, organizational design, and especially doctrine, have been frequently mismanaged. The monograph verifies that antiarmor warfare remains an inherent part of the modern mechanized battlefield. A theoretically derived and historically evidenced analysis establishes that a significantly higher level of combat power generation arms are possible with antiarmor organizations in the combined arms team. Finally the monograph concludes the Army's recent decision to retain and upgrade the material of the Antiarmor Company was the correct answer, but for the wrong reasons. Recommendations include changes to doctrine, Antiarmor Company design and structure.