Why the U.S. Army Needs Armor: The Case for a Balanced Force

• Published in: Foreign affairs (New York, N.Y.) Vol. 92; no. 3; pp. 129 - 136
• Main Authors: McKinney, Chris, Elfendahl, Mark, McMaster, H. R.
• Format: Magazine Article
• Language: English
• Published: New York Council on Foreign Relations 01.05.2013; Council on Foreign Relations, Inc; Council on Foreign Relations NY
• Subjects: Aircraft maneuvers; Armaments; Armed forces; Armies; Armor; Armored military vehicles; Armored vehicles; Armored vehicles, Military; Armoured military vehicles; Army; Budget deficits; Budgets; Defense spending; Equipment and supplies; ESSAYS; Ground forces; Insurgency; Military; Military defense; Military Personnel; Military strategy; Military weapons; Missiles; Pentagon; Presidents; Soldiers; Teams; U.S.A; United States; United States of America; Wages; War; Warfare; Weapons; World War II; World War Two; United States; United States > US
• ISSN: 0015-7120; 2327-7793

Ever since World War II, the US has depended on armored forces -- forces equipped with tanks and other protected vehicles -- to wage its wars. Organized into units called "armored brigade combat teams," which consist of about 4,500 soldiers outfitted with Abrams tanks and Bradley Fighting Vehicles, the US Army's armored forces are among the most expensive ground formations to train and equip. At a time when budget constraints are forcing the Pentagon to make tough choices, the army's armored forces may seem like an extravagance. And at a time when precision-guided missiles can destroy faraway targets in seconds, tanks and armored vehicles might appear obsolete. Decisions about the US Army's force structure and capabilities are complicated and rarely discussed outside the Pentagon. But they matter greatly: once taken, they will shape the military options available to the US president and affect the Pentagon's ability to execute defense strategy for years to come. Adapted from the source document.