I enjoy Gregg Easterbrook’s writing, especially in his Page 2 Column for ESPN. For The New Republic, he’s a jack of all trades, like all journalists, writing on any and every subject. The problem isn’t just his, but endemic to journalism. His columns are a worthwhile read, but often contain errors. For instance, his article about tanks has a few mistakes while the overall sentiment is correct. For instance, he talks about the vulnerability of tanks in the urban environment. But where he talks about infantry walking behind tanks (he must have watched Patton), the technique that evolved in WWII for America was to keep tanks behind the infantry in cities, and use them as direct fire artillery. In other words, when the infantry ran into a problem, the tank would move up just enough to hit building where then enemy was holed up and blast away with high explosive rounds.
And when he gets to the difference between and the Abrams, a tank, and the Bradley, an infantry fighting vehicle (IFV – a term which, along with Infantry Carrying Vehicle (ICV), has replaced the term Armored Personnel Carrier (APC) because of the increased capability), he claims the Bradley is called a Fighting Vehicle in a huh? moment, but is really a baby tank. Talk about your huh? moments. He notes the lack of the cannon used by tanks in a Bradley, but somehow fails to notice the crew compartment. The Bradley is designed to transport an infantry squad, if not in comfort, at least in a lethal package. And then he says the Marines now have a Bradley Junior in the LAV. Well, they had them in Desert Storm, and the Stryker vehicle is also the LAV-III. Given the controversy around the Stryker in the military, you’d figure he’d know that.
And that’s just his most recent piece. Earlier one’s also contain mistakes. That’s the problem with even smart media people. They make enough mistakes you never know how much you can rely on them.
