:: Community Forums ›

Army Museum artifacts for "training" vs "historical value"?

#16: Re: Army Museum artifacts for "training" vs "historical value"? Author: bsmart, Location: Central Maryland

Posted: Sat Oct 15, 2011 7:57 pm
----
Why should they send them anywhere for training? Give them the basics and then send them to the big cold sandbox in central Asia to fill in doing other jobs like patrolling in MRAPs. Remember we don't need heavy armor anymore it's all about asymetrical warfare.

#17: Re: Army Museum artifacts for "training" vs "historical value"? Author: Doug_Kibbey, Location: The Great Satan

Posted: Sat Oct 15, 2011 11:41 pm
----

- bsmart

Why should they send them anywhere for training? Give them the basics and then send them to the big cold sandbox in central Asia to fill in doing other jobs like patrolling in MRAPs. Remember we don't need heavy armor anymore it's all about asymetrical warfare.

"The tank is dead." I gotta' keep reminding myself of that. Smile

#18: Re: Army Museum artifacts for "training" vs "historical value"? Author: Roy_A_Lingle, Location: El Paso & Ft Bliss, Texas

Posted: Sun Oct 16, 2011 7:57 am
----
Hi Folks!

It so sad that a group of people who funded a museum for civilians to learn about steam trains don't want civilians to learn about their Army's history.

As for sending units to Ft Knox to train, the BRAC did the same thing to the Air Defense Artillery. Ft Still doesn''t have the area required for modern artillery. The Army wanted to close Ft Still and bring the Field Artillery here to Ft Bliss which has ranges large enough to fire anything. Now in addition to field artillery (for the most part MLRS battalions) the air defense units must come here for live firings.

This BS just makes me sick.
Sgt, Scouts out!

Last edited by Roy_A_Lingle on Sat Oct 29, 2011 12:39 pm; edited 1 time in total

#19: Re: Army Museum artifacts for "training" vs "historical valu Author: Garry_Redmon, Location: Kentucky

Posted: Wed Oct 19, 2011 3:12 am
----
I've been out of town, but I'm not sure if I can add much to the discussion that hasn't already been said (but that's not going to stop me).

The reason given for moving the vehicles from the Patton Museum to Fort Benning was for "training" and showing the progression of armor design. As one person was quoted as saying "You don't move and leave the family photographs behind."

I've also heard that the move had to do more with economics than training because the locals wanted the tanks there as a tourist draw and had the politcal clout to get it done. I wonder if it was to help bolster the tourist draw to the infantry museum since it is not drawing the crowds for all the money that was invested in its construction (with restaurant/IMAX theater).

It would be ironic if after all this the vehicles are put into storage and the only people who see them are the armor school students. That won't help the local economy.

Realistically the only vehicles needed today for training are ex-Warsaw Pact vehicles and technicals. If students needed to see the historical context of armored vehicles, they could have been sent to Fort Knox a whole lot cheaper than sending the tanks to Benning.

If there are any vehicles they don't need, I hope they send them back to Fort Knox. Yeah, fat chance.

Garry

#20: Re: Army Museum artifacts for "training" vs "historical value"? Author: Geoff_walden,

Posted: Thu Oct 20, 2011 11:38 am
----

- Doug_Kibbey

- bsmart

Why should they send them anywhere for training? Give them the basics and then send them to the big cold sandbox in central Asia to fill in doing other jobs like patrolling in MRAPs. Remember we don't need heavy armor anymore it's all about asymetrical warfare.

"The tank is dead." I gotta' keep reminding myself of that.

Weeelllll ... The current rotation thru JMTC Graf/Hohenfels is a "Full Spectrum Operations" exercise - not counter-insurgency (the first FSO there in years). It's not with tanks, because the units going thru the exercise aren't armor units, but if 170th or 172nd were doing this rotation, it would be kinda-sorta like the "old days" at Hohenfels, with tank-on-tank.

Oh, and FWIW, I've been off-and-on associated with the Armor School since 1978, and I never saw any official training done on the Patton Museum "training collection," except as noted above - on the T62. I really don't think the modern Armor students at Ft. Benning need any sort of training on a Tiger II or Panther II, etc.

#21: Re: Army Museum artifacts for "training" vs "historical value"? Author: Neil_Baumgardner, Location: Arlington, VA

Posted: Fri Oct 21, 2011 1:41 am
----
Yeah, like Geoff said, the Army is starting to place more emphasis on "Full Spectrum Operations" - going back to basics, including conventional military operations as well as COIN. With the Army largely out of Iraq, and theoretically getting out of Afghanistan in the future, less and less emphasis will be placed on COIN. What that exactly means for the Army's future is less certain...

But quietly, the tank is starting to make a comeback...

#22: Re: Army Museum artifacts for "training" vs "historical value"? Author: Sabot, Location: Kentucky

Posted: Sat Oct 22, 2011 2:56 pm
----
Back in 1991, right after the Gulf War, I recall my AOAC class going to the museum and getting a demonstration on how the Sherman was able to defeat the Panther (because of the motorized traverse). It was given by a former WW2 Sherman tank commander. I believe he traversed and made several fire commands prior to the Panther getting its main gun laid on the Sherman.

Although, I figured the tanks normally turn their noses into the direction of fire and that woud hasten laying the main gun on target.

If politics weren't involved, the Army would have probably moved all combat arms training to Bliss. Good amount of maneuver space, range impact areas and the weather allows soldiers to acclimate to regions where we tend to spend our combat tours.

#23: Re: Army Museum artifacts for "training" vs "historical value"? Author: Dontos, Location: Vine Grove, KY

Posted: Sat Oct 22, 2011 5:44 pm
----
Rob

I remember back in the early 90's (during the Clinton era drawdown) while I was at Ft Hood, there were definite rumors of moving the Armor Center to Ft Hood. It actually made sense, although I don't know how serious that was, at the time. The standard reply to moving the Armor Center was the 'KGB' (ie "Knox Good ole Boys") would never allow a move to happen.

I guess 'they' sold out too.....

Having served at Ft Polk, which had similiar problems with wildlife & EPA as Ft Benning seems to have now, the choice of Ft Benning made no sense, until you add the massive amount of political pull which Ft Benning 'flexed' to gain the favorable choice.

Too bad BRAC 05 did't stick to a realistic goal of 'saving' taxpayer money.....

Regards
Don

#24: Re: Army Museum artifacts for "training" vs "historical value"? Author: Sabot, Location: Kentucky

Posted: Mon Oct 24, 2011 2:50 am
----
I spent my formative years at Hood as well, post Desert Storm from 92 (after I completed AOAC & BMOC) to Jan 95. When that ADA Patriot unit moved into town, 5th Mech/2AD/4th Mech came to town and a whole lot of non-divisional units, I couldn't imagine where the Armor Center would have moved to.

There wasn't room to think in 93-95 at Hood, not that thinking was a requirement at Hood.

I think the real savings thought was getting the Army out of high cost of living areas like VA and moving them to the sticks at Knox. But no one figured out just how much it would cost to move all the pieces before they made the decision to move.

-> AFV News Discussion Board

All times are GMT - 6 Hours

Go to page Previous 1, 2 :| |: Page 2 of 2