Com-Central.net

Official: Patton Museum here to stay

Wednesday, March 14, 2007 8:53 PM CDT

Future at Fort Knox could bring name change, shifted focus

By ERICA WALSH

FORT KNOX — The Patton Museum is not moving to Fort Benning, but the Georgia post could get its own armor museum.

Recent reports in a Georgia newspaper stating the armor museum was moving to Fort Benning caused concern among some Hardin County residents who believed the Patton Museum of Cavalry and Armor would leave Fort Knox.

It is important to distinguish the Patton Museum from an armor museum, said Stephen McLean, executive director of the Patton Museum Foundation.

The Army plans to establish a separate, new armor museum at Fort Benning, Ga., he said. The Patton Museum will stay at Fort Knox.

Decisions regarding the armor museum ultimately lie with the Department of the Army’s Center for Military History, said Connie Shaffery, Fort Knox spokeswoman.

The purpose of an armor museum at Fort Benning would be for soldiers to train and understand the basics of their profession, said Lt. Col. Shane Lee, armor center and museum historian. There is an obligation to the Army and future armor soldiers to provide a piece of their heritage at their training grounds, he said.

Moving future armor students to Fort Benning without an armor museum would be like a family moving to a new home but not taking any of its photo albums, he said.

The Patton Museum of Cavalry and Armor has more than 285 vehicles in its collection. Those vehicles could be moved to the new armor museum. However, most of the combat vehicles have doubles and those copies could stay at the Patton Museum.

“We’ve got quite a few that are duplicates,� Lee said. “There’s more than enough to share.�

While vehicles and artifacts could be moved to Fort Benning, the decision on which ones could leave has not been made and also is the responsibility of the Center for Military History, Shaffery said.

A new armor museum at Fort Benning would not mean the Patton Museum would suffer. The museum is beginning to undergo the next phase of a multimillion-dollar expansion, McLean said.

The new Patton Museum likely will be renamed — the proposed moniker is the Gen. George Patton Museum — and will be more “story-centric� rather than “thing-centric,� McLean said.

The museum will focus on Patton’s life, leadership style and the military family, as well as Army values and technology.

“It’s going to have a focus on really thanking the American soldier,� McLean said.

McLean will receive the final master plan in the next few weeks.

Residents and visitors should not expect a quick change. The Patton Museum expansion will take between five and seven years, McLean said.

When finished, it will be more interactive and stimulate the senses, McLean said.

“This is going to be quite an alive museum,� he said.

Weblink: Official: Patton Museum here to stay

Well, that was illuminating, in the way only a PR professional can accomplish.

What I got out of it was this:

"The museum will focus on Patton’s life, leadership style and the military family, as well as Army values and technology."

...or, "his stuff will remain here, and beyond that, we're not sure. Probably some historic vehicles that we have multiples of, especially WWII and maybe Vietnam since G.S. the Third served there."

I sense that maybe pre-existing agreements with the family may have had some bearing on this decision, as it should.

Well, the "good news," depending on your POV, is that Army BRAC funds have taken a hit which could delay any of this a number of years. Frankly, I could easily see the Armor branch move getting killed after the next administration comes along.

OTOH, BRAC could be potentially beneficial to the Ordnance Museum with the move to Fort Lee and a new 375,000 sf facility - assuming the funds materialize and it gets built, etc...

Neil

- Neil_Baumgardner

Well, the "good news," depending on your POV, is that Army BRAC funds have taken a hit which could delay any of this a number of years. Frankly, I could easily see the Armor branch move getting killed after the next administration comes along.

OTOH, BRAC could be potentially beneficial to the Ordnance Museum with the move to Fort Lee and a new 375,000 sf facility - assuming the funds materialize and it gets built, etc...

Neil

My fear is that the budget for the move to Ft Lee will be lowballed and then as costs rise it will be cut back with the collection split or in 'temporary storage'

But as operational costs continue to mount I can see a lot of BRAC being viewed as a luxury that we can't afford.

And on a side note - I wonder what effect all the recent publicity about Walter Reed will have on the plans to close it and move it to the Bethesda NMC? I'm actually surprised that someone hasn't suggested accelerating the transition as a way to solve the problems.

Reading between the lines I think they are saying the Armor Museum is moving to Ft Benning and they will leave behind the name.

- MarkHolloway

Reading between the lines I think they are saying the Armor Museum is moving to Ft Benning and they will leave behind the name.

That's the way I read it also, maybe leave the personal mementoes and the memorials (especially from old Third Army units) and a few token tanks. Other than that, and a nice building, nothing.

Frankly I am not sure what they would do with all that space, although they could conceivably use it to hold most if not all of the remaining collection - the "duplicates," etc.

Neil

On a semi-related note... Interesting article about a review of the US Army Europe drawdown... Frankly bringing back 2 heavy divisions (ie your least deployable forces) and replacing them with 1 high deployable Stryker brigade didnt make a whole lot of sense to me...

But if this gets curtailed, it could have a ripple effect on some of the BRAC moves... 1st ID still has one brigade (4th BCT) in Germany, and 1st Armored Division is still mostly based there...

The 1st ID's 3rd BCT (currently cadre at Fort Hood) is supposed to go to Knox, but I wouldnt be surprised if it stays at Hood if 4th BCT stays in Europe and the armor center move gets killed by budget cuts. OTOH, maybe 1st ID will complete the move and 1st AD stays in Europe...

Neil

U.S. Commander Reviews Planned U.S. Troop Cuts in Europe

US State Department: March 15, 2007

WASHINGTON --- The United States plans to send its first rotational Army brigade to Bulgaria and Romania in the summer of 2007, and the senior U.S. and NATO commander in Europe told Congress he is reviewing a previous decision to withdraw more than 40,000 American troops from Europe over the next several years.

Also, a leading congressman said success in Afghanistan might be essential to the long-term effectiveness of the NATO alliance.

“If NATO is not successful, it can be seen as an impotent organization, and the fallout from that could be devastating,� House Armed Services Chairman Ike Skelton told NATO Supreme Allied Commander General Bantz Craddock, who is also chief of the U.S. European Command (EUCOM). “We can’t let that happen,� Skelton said.

Europe-Based Forces Heavily Deployed

The number of troops in EUCOM are scheduled to decrease from 112,000 to fewer than 70,000, primarily by transferring Army brigades from Germany to posts within the United States. Craddock told the House Armed Services Committee March 15, however, that his Europe-based forces are involved heavily in global missions, including deployments to Iraq and Afghanistan, as well as supporting the creation of the new Africa Command.

In addition to its wartime troop commitments, the European Command is establishing a new Joint Task Force-East at shared bases in Bulgaria and Romania, to be staffed by approximately 2,000 to 3,000 U.S. troops. These troops temporarily would rotate to the bases for several months at a time, leaving their families at their home bases. A squadron from the Germany-based 2nd Stryker Cavalry Regiment is scheduled to conduct the first “proof of principle� rotation to Eastern Europe “in the summer of 2007,� Craddock testified.

In late 2005 and early 2006, the United States signed agreements with Romania and Bulgaria allowing U.S. troops to train on local military bases. The United States intends to maintain constant rotation of troops in the two countries, Craddock said. But the current pace of U.S. worldwide deployments means those bases might not always be staffed. The Joint Task Force-East is intended to maintain a U.S. military presence near the Black Sea and Caucasus to help promote stability in a strategic region.

Craddock Reviewing Troop Strengths

The many missions to Iraq, Afghanistan, Eastern Europe and sub-Saharan Africa “compel us to review the previous assumptions … to determine if our planned posture fully supports the tasks and missions we have been given,� Craddock testified.

The United States plans to rotate some U.S.-based personnel for short-term assignments at posts in Eastern Europe and elsewhere. But Craddock said these short-term assignments might be “sub-optimal� in developing “long-term and enduring relationships� with European allies. Craddock said he recently asked for a list of training exercises and partnership-building missions that had to be canceled because of wartime troop shortages. “It was surprising in its volume,� Craddock said of the list of canceled missions. He added that, during his military career, his Europe-based assignments were especially important in engaging with long-term partners, helping build allied militaries and developing an enduring connection between American forces and their host communities.

In Afghanistan, about 15,000 U.S. troops are among the 34,000 multinational forces in NATO’s International Security Assistance Force (ISAF), which helps provide stability for Afghanistan’s government. ISAF also operates 25 provincial reconstruction teams, which Craddock called “the leading edge of NATO’s efforts for security and reconstruction.�

Security and economic development go “hand in hand,� Craddock said. However, he acknowledged that the 26-nation NATO alliance is having difficulty staffing the reconstruction teams. NATO’s member nations have committed themselves to the Afghanistan mission, but NATO’s “level of ambition … is not matched by its political will� for member nations to deploy troops, Craddock said.

Approximately 200 NATO forces are also in Iraq, providing staff training for Iraqi officers and noncommissioned officers.

Skelton said he remains “convinced that the effort in Afghanistan is winnable. But our partners must seriously step up their efforts by contributing more troops and aid.�

Of course that begs the question about why we have any large combat organizations in Europe at all now. The only reason I can think of is so they are already there when the reincarnated Evil Empire rears it's head in a few years. In that case I would like them beployed as far east as possible (Poland, Hungary, Rumania, etc) But the days of needing a heavy force to defend Western Europe is over. Cut costs bring 'em home. Besides when we vbring back those museums maybe there will be enough duplicates

- bsmart

- MarkHolloway

Reading between the lines I think they are saying the Armor Museum is moving to Ft Benning and they will leave behind the name.

That's the way I read it also, maybe leave the personal mementoes and the memorials (especially from old Third Army units) and a few token tanks. Other than that, and a nice building, nothing.

Well, the "Elvis in the Army" exhibit could be extended and expanded.

I forgot about that. Might just be a bigger draw than Patton. Of course they may want to move that to Graceland

- Doug_Kibbey

- bsmart

- MarkHolloway

Reading between the lines I think they are saying the Armor Museum is moving to Ft Benning and they will leave behind the name.

That's the way I read it also, maybe leave the personal mementoes and the memorials (especially from old Third Army units) and a few token tanks. Other than that, and a nice building, nothing.

Well, the "Elvis in the Army" exhibit could be extended and expanded.

Elvis has left the building !!!

That exhibit is no longer on display.

Don

Wait, I've got it!

Curmudgeons In Armor! Starring Roy, Doug and a cast of thousands...

or is that too "over the top"?

- bsmart

Of course that begs the question about why we have any large combat organizations in Europe at all now. The only reason I can think of is so they are already there when the reincarnated Evil Empire rears it's head in a few years. In that case I would like them beployed as far east as possible (Poland, Hungary, Rumania, etc) But the days of needing a heavy force to defend Western Europe is over. Cut costs bring 'em home. Besides when we vbring back those museums maybe there will be enough duplicates

IMO, you keep large heavy combat forces in Europe near big airbases and ports. Its not about the Evil Empire... Its about a lot shorter trip from Germany, etc to the Middle East (ie assuming we ever get out of Iraq and arent in Saudi Arabia anymore, etc) than from the US. It is frankly beyond me as to why you would station all of your heaviest, least deployable forces the furthest distance possible from any likely contingency..

Neil

The reason we had heavy forces in Europe was never as a staging to go elsewhere. It was to show the Soviets that they couldn't go any further and to prop up strugtlling economies. The economic asspect is long gone. Heavy forces aren't deployable as rapid response forces. The only way that works is to preposition the heavy equipment where you expect to need it and bring in the troops. And you can bring in the troops from their home station.