13-05-2002 06:14									#61
	Support Apolyton, buy Galactic Civilizations

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?

	13-05-2002 06:16									#62
	Support Apolyton, pre-order Civilization IV

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.

	13-05-2002 06:35									#63
	Support Apolyton

quote: 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.

quote: 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.

	13-05-2002 06:40									#64
	Lose 30 kilos (of popups)

quote: 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?

	13-05-2002 07:05									#65
	Full PM-box? Change here!

quote: 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.

	13-05-2002 07:07									#66
	Got spare money?

Exactly.

	13-05-2002 07:09									#67
	Enter the AD-FREE zone

quote: 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.

	13-05-2002 07:11									#68
	Got spare money?

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.

	13-05-2002 07:26									#69
	Put an end to popups!

quote: 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.

	13-05-2002 07:27									#70
	Enter the AD-FREE zone

quote: 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.

quote: 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?

quote: 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.

	13-05-2002 07:38									#71
	Support Apolyton, buy Galactic Civilizations: Deluxe Edition

quote: 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".

	13-05-2002 07:40									#72
	Full PM-box? Change here!

**** 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.

	13-05-2002 07:41									#73
	Browse Apolyton AD-FREE

quote: Originally posted by mindseye quote: 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.

	13-05-2002 08:10									#74
	Support Apolyton, buy Civilization: The Boardgame

quote: 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.

	13-05-2002 08:18									#75
	Support Apolyton, buy Civilization 2

quote: 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/M...303paladin.html

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

	13-05-2002 08:22									#76
	Full PM-box? Change here!

An interesting thing to consider is that the Republicans are killing a weapons program that benefits members of their own party.

The company building the Crusader has strong links to the Republican party. The factory where it would be built is in an area represented by a Republican senator.

This is from CNN:
But the Crusader has another constituency, perhaps more powerful than its Pentagon backers: United Defense, the company building the system, is owned by the Carlyle Group, a privately held corporation run by a host of former Reagan and Bush Administration officials. They include Reagan's Pentagon chief, Frank Carlucci, and James Baker, George Bush's Secretary of State and the man who helped George W. win his election struggle in Florida. United Defense has decided to assemble the gun in a factory expressly built for the program near the artillery school at Fort Sill, Okla. The fort is represented in Congress by g.o.p. Senator James Inhofe, a senior member of the Senate Armed Services Committee, and Representative J.C. Watts, a member of the House Armed Services Committee and the House's fourth-ranking Republican. Both have exhorted the Army to buy the Crusader.

	13-05-2002 10:35									#77
	Remove this text

quote: Originally posted by mindseye (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

This isn't exactly true. Factor in the reduced ordnance payload per sortie of a single aircraft, the much higher maintainance cost of the aircraft itself as a delivery platform, the risk to that platform - hence to the payload delivery itself, and I think you'll find it nowhere near as cost-effective and reliable as you might think.
This doesn't even account for the aforementioned bad-weather problems preventing said aircraft from even taking off.

	13-05-2002 11:06									#78
	Support Apolyton

quote: **** 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.

And on the 9th Day after we got rid of all-weather strike aircraft, God created rain

	13-05-2002 12:55									#79
	Remove this text

I think anyone supporting these behemoths is living in the past, with the advent of computer technology etc developing these would be the Jurassic Park equivalent of cloning a dinosaur...

How often has this type of gear been required or been practical in the last, say 30 years? Personally I don't see there being another large open style of war where the US has to fight technologically equal foes.

How useful would Crusader be against the Taliban or Al'Qaeda? Answer: F*cking useless!

That 11 billion would be far better utilised improving intelligence gathering (i.e. stopping the need to go to full scale war in the 1st place!), buying more and improving the Predator style drones etc and, basically maintaining the technological edge in general. Avoiding friendly fire casualties would be a good start as well!

Why you guys are so into overkill beats me, it's like the nuclear arms race - you weren't content with just having the capability to destroy the World, you had to be able to do it at least a 100 times over...

As for carriers, don't you guys have more than the rest of the World by a factor of at least two??? Do you need all those carriers - I don't think so!

Concentrate on what's needed and forget about wasting money on white elephants...

	13-05-2002 12:58									#80
	Increase Your PM Length

quote: An interesting thing to consider is that the Republicans are killing a weapons program that benefits members of their own party. The company building the Crusader has strong links to the Republican party. The factory where it would be built is in an area represented by a Republican senator.

Well, of course. Usually you have this adminstration (which has more people knowledgable about military affairs than other administrations) realizing what is and is not needed (even if it is politically good), but Congressmen will always fight to keep their pork spending.

This is one of the things I like about Rumsfeld. He doesn't care the plant is in a Republican's district. He doesn't think we need it, so it doesn't matter.

	13-05-2002 13:12									#81
	Support Apolyton, buy Civilization III: Complete

quote: Originally posted by David Floyd Why the hell should we fight North Korea, or Iraq for that matter?

Iraq: Because they sponsor terrorism, and they aren't at all friendly. Also, Saddam seems to be going after WMD, and it would be better to get rid of him before he gets them rather than after.

North Korea: Because they want to invade South Korea. South Korea is an American ally which the U.S. would be obligated by treaty to defend. It is also a useful economic partner for America. Finally, North Korea's claim to legitemacy is pretty shaky.

	13-05-2002 13:27									#82
	Support Apolyton, buy Alpha Centauri

If Rumsie gets his way, I need to change my sig.

	13-05-2002 13:33									#83
	Browse Apolyton AD-FREE

We can't have that! Write those letters to your Congressman to 'Protect the Pork' .

	13-05-2002 13:34									#84
	Browse Apolyton AD-FREE

quote: Originally posted by Tingkai An interesting thing to consider is that the Republicans are killing a weapons program that benefits members of their own party. The company building the Crusader has strong links to the Republican party. The factory where it would be built is in an area represented by a Republican senator. This is from CNN: But the Crusader has another constituency, perhaps more powerful than its Pentagon backers: United Defense, the company building the system, is owned by the Carlyle Group, a privately held corporation run by a host of former Reagan and Bush Administration officials. They include Reagan's Pentagon chief, Frank Carlucci, and James Baker, George Bush's Secretary of State and the man who helped George W. win his election struggle in Florida. United Defense has decided to assemble the gun in a factory expressly built for the program near the artillery school at Fort Sill, Okla. The fort is represented in Congress by g.o.p. Senator James Inhofe, a senior member of the Senate Armed Services Committee, and Representative J.C. Watts, a member of the House Armed Services Committee and the House's fourth-ranking Republican. Both have exhorted the Army to buy the Crusader.

Wow - a politician who isn't completely corrupt. The US citizens are speachless.

If this had been in Denmark just those people's links to the industri who would benefit from their decisions would have made them unelectable.

	13-05-2002 20:30									#85
	Support Apolyton, buy GURPS/ Alpha Centauri

quote: Originally posted by MOBIUS As for carriers, don't you guys have more than the rest of the World by a factor of at least two??? Do you need all those carriers - I don't think so! Concentrate on what's needed and forget about wasting money on white elephants...

They are cool as hell, though. I've observed night carrier ops. It is just like Top Gun (afterburner fires, etc.), except you feel the shaking when planes crash into the deck. Oh...and a catapult launch is a friggen rush!!!


So maybe you just don't like us having all this cool stuff. (Makes you feel like the little kid, whose parents won' let him have an air rifle...)

	13-05-2002 21:30									#86
	Full PM-box? Change here!

quote: Originally posted by GP They are cool as hell, though. I've observed night carrier ops. It is just like Top Gun (afterburner fires, etc.), except you feel the shaking when planes crash into the deck. Oh...and a catapult launch is a friggen rush!!! So maybe you just don't like us having all this cool stuff. (Makes you feel like the little kid, whose parents won' let him have an air rifle...)

Hey don't get me wrong, I ain't got a problem about all your cool stuff - I thought the USS Missouri was Waaay Cool!

It's just having so many - it's totally unnecessary... Worse than that, it channels money away from other more deserving parts of the US defence network...

Besides, we don't need to waste our money when you guys are only too happy to oblige...

	13-05-2002 22:57									#87
	Avatar Enlargement: We've got the solution

quote: Iraq: Because they sponsor terrorism, and they aren't at all friendly. Also, Saddam seems to be going after WMD, and it would be better to get rid of him before he gets them rather than after. North Korea: Because they want to invade South Korea. South Korea is an American ally which the U.S. would be obligated by treaty to defend. It is also a useful economic partner for America. Finally, North Korea's claim to legitemacy is pretty shaky.

So? BFD!

	13-05-2002 23:07									#88
	Support Apolyton buy from Amazon

"Besides, we don't need to waste our money when you guys are only too happy to oblige..."

Thats why you are insignificant in international affiars. Until you grow some balls and get some projection forces to help us, we will continue to do things are way.

	13-05-2002 23:21									#89
	Support Apolyton, pre-order Civilization IV

"How often has this type of gear been required or been practical in the last, say 30 years? Personally I don't see there being another large open style of war where the US has to fight technologically equal foes.

How useful would Crusader be against the Taliban or Al'Qaeda? Answer: F*cking useless!

That 11 billion would be far better utilised improving intelligence gathering (i.e. stopping the need to go to full scale war in the 1st place!), buying more and improving the Predator style drones etc and, basically maintaining the technological edge in general. Avoiding friendly fire casualties would be a good start as well! "

"Concentrate on what's needed and forget about wasting money on white elephants..."

As I said previously in this thread, times and needs may change beyond expectation, and conflicts may arise that are not currently there. It is better to retain an all round, well rounded capability, (even with a lot in reserve, as there currently is) until the chance of any conflict is absent, which does not look soon.

Predators, and high tech equipment are all the rage at the moment, yet there still has to be the other end of the scale.
Conflicts will not happen how it best suits our equipment and mindsets; potential aggressors will not politely wait whilst their target gets the appropriate gear ready, and nor will they always fight the way that we want them to. Thus, having the Army, Air Force, Navy and Marine Corps capable of reacting to a variety of threats, and levels of conflict is to the advantage of the United States.
Not all coming conflicts will be like Afghanistan, just like not all wars after WW2 were push button thermonuclear affairs.

And MOBIUS, thank you very much for posting that cool pic of the Mighty Mo!!

	13-05-2002 23:36									#90
	Suffering from ads?

Im against crusader. Let me say this tho

Simon you cant very far i see in front of your nose...You think we will always fighting enemys like the taliban!?? . War changes.There is no dotrine's etched in stone. Today Taliban (or whats left of them) are the enemys. Tommorrow, could be a new threat. I hate when people say "This is the way wars will be fought in the 21st century, so get rid of this. this and this." Anyone can make this kind of conclusion is beyond me. Convential war is still the future. Not towel-heads scared shitless in caves. Thats now. We must be prepared for everything.