We aren't going to agree and that's okay.
However, anyone who really thinks decently trained Infantry is a speed bump is in for a rude awakening. There's a reason knowledgeable Tanker insist on Infantry accompaniment. So too is thinking three Javelins for a Platoon can always trump two likely to be dangerous...
I'm aware of the Stryker procurement rationales (there were several, which in itself is a clue to sloppy thinking at DA), I just do not agree with it / them. Don't have to, nor, obviously does anyone have to agree with me. I think it is a decent vehicle that has it uses. I do not think the US Army has any real use for it that would not be better met by other means. I also think the LAV 25 makes sense for the Marines. Ponder that...
My belief is that the IFV concept was a non-starter and should never have been pursued (as it was for the Bradley initially, yet another of its compromises *). APCs make sense and two flavors are needed. A heavy to accompany armor and a light for utility -- and not in direct MIC/HIC but for police/FID and similar action -- uses. IOW, had it been me making the decision, I'd have upgraded all the 113s to A3 Plus and six roadwheels with Soucy Tracks. It wasn't my decision, so that's that.
It's all about METT-TC and today's fight may not be tomorrows. The Bandaids ® are applied to the immediate wound and thus may not prepare one for other, perhaps far larger wounds that may require an air impermeable pad, lots of adhesive tape, a Large Battle Dressing and a bunch of Quik Clot. Nothing wrong with Bandaids ®, they have their uses -- and as I said, that's the Army way because substantive change is hard -- not impossible, just hard. I've watched those things applied all over the Army corpus for about 70 years and most have worked. They also, as I said, have put us where we are. So, yeah, they can work -- they can also obscure more dangerous conditions or lead to a false diagnosis.
I question if where we are is where we want to be or, more importantly, should be. IMO, so should everyone else be asking questions instead of defending the status quo or rearranging deck chairs...
* A reminder that designing future structure or equipment based on current fads may not be a good idea. IFVs were a fad; wheeled combat vehicles are a fad...
Agreed, but it looks like we're stuck with the fads we have for some time...
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Ken White
I question if where we are is where we want to be or, more importantly, should be. IMO, so should everyone else be asking questions instead of defending the status quo or rearranging deck chairs...
* A reminder that designing future structure or equipment based on current fads may not be a good idea. IFVs were a fad; wheeled combat vehicles are a fad...
...so will re-arranging some deck chairs enable us to get more out of our fads? If neither the Bradley or Stryker is a good option for intented role would combining them at lower levels enable the strengths of one to make up for the weaknesses of the other until we have something better? That was my point when asking if considering something like a TRICAP brigade or cavalry regiment was worthwhile.
It does fill that niche. The question is what purpose the niche serves.
Quote:
Originally Posted by
B.Smitty
I don't see a problem with the Stryker's role... It fills the niche between unarmored trucks and heavy units.
Filling the niche in low intensity combat is beneficial. Filling the niche in peace time can lead to low intensity combat due to a capability being extant. The niche has limited value in other types of combat but if it exists, it will be used even if inappropriate. It's sort of the case my Mother warned me of; 'Be careful what you want, you might get it...'
That limited utility leads to follow on questions; should the US Army be involved in paramilitary efforts? If so, is the Stryker the best vehicle or is it excessively expensive and over armored and gunned for the role while offering inadequate mobility and protection for even low intensity combat against a moderately equipped force?
Quote:
Future Strykers are getting a double v-shaped hull to further improve underbelly protection (up to "MRAP 2" levels).
Yes, I know, making them more expensive and heavier thus using more fuel and developing more mechanical problems while being even more roadbound and simply encouraging the bad guys to use more explosive...
Armor has benefits. It also has disadvantages. Two are weight and cocooning -- the protection offered leads to both a false sense of security and a reluctance to dismount (the antithesis of getting out among the populace in FID / COIN-like efforts... :rolleyes:). The weight impact impedes mobility and increases resupply needs and maintenance thus inducing tactical constraints.
Consider also that you can only add so much Armor and you thus confer an advantage to the feared IED user. In combat, agility almost always beats armor. :cool:That's a benefit, no question and I agree that it's important -- I also again state that you get what you pay for -- and you always pay, one way or another.
Quote:
Yes, the Stryker vehicle itself does sacrifice some off-road mobility to do so
Thus providing opponents with a greater ability to predict what the force equipped with it might do, where they might appear and what will impede their actions...
It's a paramilitary vehicle with limited combat utility. It is good at what it does. For the US Army, the question remains is it what it does required or even beneficial. I'd vote no on both. YMMV.
Quote:
IIRC, light infantry platoons don't have any organic Javelins right? They all come from the company. Maybe I'm misremembering.
Old light with the worthless Dragon, yeah, Co level. Today, Javelin, two per Platoon in the Light Inf Bns. Specifically to avoid being speed bumps. The light folks are also heavy on the TOWs and the kids are willing to get close to put an M4 up a tailpipe. :D
We're not going to agree on the Stryker nor do we need to do so.
Quote:
Originally Posted by
B.Smitty
Don't know if I buy the notion that "Filling the niche in peace time can lead to low intensity combat due to a capability being extant".
Well, I've been to several LIC efforts, all because we could do that and really for little more reason -- all at least marginally successful, all at a great cost for the benefit derived. If a capability exists it WILL be used, the system demands that it be... :mad:
Quote:
We didn't have a medium-weight units in Kosovo, but we still went in anyway. Heavy units took way to long to get there. Light units weren't enough of a deterrence.
Oh? Better check your history. The Marines and 82 Abn elms that went in first were doing fine; SSGs were playing Village Mayor, LTs playing Disctrict Governors and they were getting things done -- until Do Do Bird Sanchez finally got there and delivered his first brilliant order "All Elements outside base camps will be accompanied by a field grade officer." :rolleyes:
Quote:
We need them because our nation has shown a consistent desire to intervene in LIC/COIN/paramilitary efforts. The Army can argue it should or shouldn't get involved efforts, but if the President says "go", the Army will go.
Not the Army's place to make that argument. It is the Army's job to provide capability to execute likely missions. ALL likely missions -- over emphasis on one sort of mission is as bad as denying the existence of mission sets.
Quote:
I don't see this "limited utility"...
Okay.
Quote:
...So it may end up being a net mobility gain, even though it's roughly 1 ton heavier.
We'll see. If I were a bettor... :D
Quote:
I don't know if i agree with the "almost always" part...In fact, more agile HMMWV-mounted scouts were relegate to rear-area security duties because their commanders felt they were unsurvivable.
We all make judgements based on our experience. As for the HMMWVs, my son then in the 82d roamed all over Baghdad and Fallujah for a full tour with unarmored HMMWVs. Had a few IED hits but basically, went okay. Risk aversion is not a determinant of capability.
Quote:
IMHO, if Stryker units had been available for OIF MCO, they would've performed well. They have just enough armor to defeat the Iraqi's primary anti-armor system (RPG-7), and have many more dismounts than heavy units.
Could be. Been interesting to watch.