arms-d@ucbvax.ARPA (05/25/85)
From: The Arms-D Moderator (Harold Ancell) <ARMS-D@MIT-MC.ARPA>
Arms-Discussion Digest Volume 3 : Issue 40
Today's Topics:
ERWs
Real People
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Fri, 24 May 85 03:23:12 EST
From: Herb Lin <LIN@MIT-MC>
Subject: ERWs
From: Jeff Miller AMSTE-TOI 4675 <jmiller at apg-1>
Someone recently tried to argue that the ERW's effectiveness against
WP [Warsaw Pact - Mod.] armor could be easily defeated by the
attackers by spreading their armor formations out. Scott Renner's
reply that such dispersion would be exactly what the NATO commanders
would wish for was right on target.
What I've learned about Soviet armor doctrine calls for them to spread
their armor by about 1/3 more, from about 75 meters to 100 meters.
That's a far cry from the half-mile spacings that I recall someone
mentioning.
The WP's best chances rest with
the principle of mass. When massed, their numbers and willingness to
accept horrible casualty rates can overcome NATO AT defenses.
Splintered, they are severely disadvantaged by superior Western ATGWs.
I agree with the splintering claim. However, it seemes that a massed
formation offers a target-rich environment, in which conventional
anti-tank weapons (multiple rocket launchers or even unguided
artillery) would have much higher P(k)'s than in the splintered case.
Moreover, a massed formation would me much more vulnerable to
anti-tank concepts like Assault Breaker, since the main problem that
the new concepts have is that of target acquisition. Surely a nuclear
weapon is more efficient, but it carries with it a host of other
problems that conventional weapons don't have.
...westerners
convinced themselves that a weapon which destroyed people but left
property alone (how capitalist!) was somehow more evil than existing
nuclear weapons.
No argument here from me; this was one of the more asinine statements
that came out of the debate. It is literally true, but the people
were tank crews and the property was Soviet tanks.
... Personally, I believe the use
of the weapon would trigger a violent NBC retaliation by a frustrated
enemy.
If you believe this, then I guess I don't understand your support for
ERW (or have I improperly inferred that you support it?). I agree,
and it is consistent with Soviet doctrine as well.
By the way, I distinctly remember an article on helicopter-helicopter
warfare in a back issue of IDR; I was surprised at the time, because
it pointed out that no one seemed to be thinking about it. It was
mostly hardware though. Also, in a recent DEFENCE journal (9/84),
there is a short squib on some h-h stuff.
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 24 May 85 08:51:10 PDT
From: Richard Foy <foy@AEROSPACE.ARPA>
Subject: Real People
It seems to me that when we bring up the subject of real people we
should also think about the real people who are unjustly harmed in our
own country at least as much as we think about the people in other
countries.
------------------------------
[End of ARMS-D Digest]