Hey guys, I read in the paper yesterday, that the boys in the Pentagon went ballistic when Don Rumsfeld came out against the Crusader howitzer weapons system that has been in developement fot this past decade. The Crusader is a VERY impressive 155mm tracked cannon that can shoot 8 rounds at a 22 mile range in one minute's time and can immediately move off so as to defeat counter battery fire from the enemy. The only problem with it, is that it weighs about as much as an Abrams battle tank (60 tons) and that fact limits it's air deliverly to distant battle fields in times of emergency and it's ultimate mobility due to the lack of bridges and infrastructure that are capable of supporting it's weight(the same problem that the Abrams faces). This is a weapon that was designed for the battle fields of cold war Europe and in today's strategic enviornment of brush fire wars and the need for rapid forward deployment of troops and weapons in emergency situations, it seems to me and apparently Rumsfeld too, that it isn't a good way to spend our defense money. We have the Paladin tracked 155 mm howitzer which is as accurate as the Crusader but not as capable as far as the rate of fire (4rounds per minute at an 18 mile range) and it paid for and in the arsenal as we type. Is this a case of some "near retirement" Generals in the Pentagon looking for future jobs in the private sector defense industry, or is it an honest effort of the Army to keep up with legitimate defense needs? Which ever it is, it's going to be paid for out of our pockets. So I guess the question is, is the Crusader a "Best Buy" or not?
