Do we still need tanks?

Thoughts on the use of general purpose forces versus special operations forces and special forces in current and future conflicts. by Douglas Macgregor, PhD, COL, US Army, Retired.

Doug and I sometimes disagree on how much conventional force we still need.  In this PowerPoint (827 KB), delivered in April at the National Defense University in Washington, DC, he makes his case.

warriors_rage_coverCOL Macgregor is Lead Partner of The Potomac League, a decorated combat veteran, and author of several books, including most recently The Warrior’s Rage, The Great Tank Battle of 73 Easting.

http://www.amazon.com/Warriors-Rage-Great-Battle-Easting/dp/1591145058

Be Sociable, Share!

Filed in Uncategorized | One response so far

One Response to “Do we still need tanks?”

  1. Sven Ortmannon 07 Sep 2009 at 5:20 pm 1

    The title is misleading. The presentation is really about conventional forces, not just tanks.

    He has quite a lapse on slide 3 (Hafnium munitions are most likely just a hoax).

    I can generally agree with the presentation, although I would advise to use constraint on the definition of “interests”. The trigger finger was too nervous for decades. To get the choice between war and peace right is even more important than to get the force structure right.

    [CR: Ah, Sven — always the Teutonic literalist. The purpose of the title, its only purpose, is to get you to start reading the article. It obviously worked.

    One of my favorites in that regard is one of Faulkner’s masterworks, Light in August, which is about neither light nor August.

    Hard to argue with your observation about war and peace, though.]