Page 4 of 7 FirstFirst ... 23456 ... LastLast
Results 61 to 80 of 125

Thread: Stryker collection (merged thread)

  1. #61
    Council Member Kreker's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Location
    Virginia
    Posts
    48

    Default Good encapsulation...

    Quote Originally Posted by Cavguy View Post
    No real issue here. No one seriously doubts the wheeled Stryker was chosen over the M8 AGS/M113 upgrade option mostly because of one word - transformation, or the need to create a perception of change in the Army. The Task Force Hawk debacle (Albania) forced the Army to get deployable or become irrelevant. It faced the perception that it was stodgy (maybe true) and not adapted to the future. That was beginning to impact funding in favor of the USAF and Navy, even before Rumsfeld. A new look was needed to sell congress on the new approach, and rebuilding/upgrading forty year old vehicles (M113's)and adding another tank (remember, tanks were the weapon of the past), even a light one, wasn't going to break the mold.

    Hence, a wheeled, air-transportable, air supportable, mobile system that could be rapidly deployed using theater (C-130) only lift, at least on paper. Welcome the LAV-3, or Stryker. Add a fancy new beret and wham ... transformation you have.

    I realize that's a little cynical, but there was as much an IO message in the Stryker as anything, for the Army, DoD, and Congress.

    That's not to say it's a bad vehicle per se. The wheels/tracks argument was an uproar in Armor branch. As a reformed skeptic, I have walked away impressed (except for the MGS, I suppose).
    Hi Cavguy,
    Very succinct.
    Let's not forget that there was a platform demonstration conducted for all off-the-shelf vehicles, be they wheel or track, at Ft Knox, as part of the Interim Brigade Combat Team (IBCT) modernization effort. The LAv variant won out over the 113 variant.
    As Eden pointed out the Stryker was to be an interim stop-gap until FCS was fielded, thus only seven SBCT (believe the original total was six.) Eden is also right, in that SBCT were to be used in SSCs and LICs, and could be used in MICs by being augmented/reinforced.
    Also remember that FCS is a track vehicle and not wheel. Good discussions.
    Best
    Kreker

  2. #62
    Council Member Cavguy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Location
    Honolulu, Hawaii
    Posts
    1,127

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Kreker View Post
    Hi Cavguy,
    Very succinct.
    Let's not forget that there was a platform demonstration conducted for all off-the-shelf vehicles, be they wheel or track, at Ft Knox, as part of the Interim Brigade Combat Team (IBCT) modernization effort. The LAv variant won out over the 113 variant.
    As Eden pointed out the Stryker was to be an interim stop-gap until FCS was fielded, thus only seven SBCT (believe the original total was six.) Eden is also right, in that SBCT were to be used in SSCs and LICs, and could be used in MICs by being augmented/reinforced.
    Also remember that FCS is a track vehicle and not wheel. Good discussions.
    Best
    Kreker
    Sir,

    Glad to see you back! No disagreements with anything above. As I stated earlier, I'd pick the LAV over a M113. I would have liked the M8 AGS, but you can't have it all. I remember there was a lot of recrimination over the shoot-off, about the decision criteria. Didn't bother me much then or now, I simply was noting the "IO" effects of choosing the Stryker.

    Is the FCS going to use banded or linked track? I've heard about them wanting banded track if the technology matured. Would take care of the most unpleasant part of tanking (breaking track).
    "A Sherman can give you a very nice... edge."- Oddball, Kelly's Heroes
    Who is Cavguy?

  3. #63
    Council Member Kreker's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Location
    Virginia
    Posts
    48

    Default

    Cavguy,
    Please don't call me sir...that day is long past. Hace bee on vacation and travel, thus the hiatius. To answer you question the FCS MGVs will be using banded track.
    Cheers

  4. #64
    Registered User
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Location
    Alaska
    Posts
    1

    Default

    To give you some perspective on the MGS from an MGS platoon leader I can tell you a few things.

    First and foremost the MGS' biggest asset, as with all Strykers is speed. These suckers can do 70mph. They fly. With that comes stealth. They roll up quick and quiet in comparison to say....the Bradley.

    How does that factor in todays conflicts? Simply put we always get beat to the punch. The insurgents and terrorists can hit us quick and get away. To counter that kind of speed and agility the MGS/Stryker is the best thing we have right now. Some would argue that humvees do that. But humvees die quick. The MGS and Stryker survive.

    Huh?

    Yeah. What most people don't want to let out is that Strykers are resilient as all hell. They don't just blow up when an IED hits them the way a Bradley will. The MGS & Stryker is light. It just gets knocked over. No kidding. People inside might be hurt - but they aren't killed nearly as often.

    Okay. Speed. Resilience. What else?

    Well the MGS is the quick firepower. Mainly we use it to breach buildings, hit vehicles, and create intimidation. Usually we roll with ICV's (infantry carrier vehicles), which are just Strykers rolling with a .50 and a squad of infantry. So you have a couple of ICV's and a big 105mm as backup. When the trunk monkeys jump out the back of ICV's the MGS is a helluva overwatch. With enhanced thermals and overkill firepower nobody really wants to keep fighting.

    Insurgents see the MGS and they disappear. At first they were a novelty and these guys shoot at anything that is new. Like the ATGM system Stryker. But when the turret starts to rotate all hostile fire stops. They think we can see through walls and stuff. LOL!

    The bad side is that the MGS is mechanically complex. The autoloading system is cumbersome. We can't carry organic infantry support. We can't self-recover.

    But none of that matters after you see a cannister round hit a car!

  5. #65
    Council Member Cavguy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Location
    Honolulu, Hawaii
    Posts
    1,127

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Yrkoon9 View Post
    To give you some perspective on the MGS from an MGS platoon leader I can tell you a few things.

    First and foremost the MGS' biggest asset, as with all Strykers is speed. These suckers can do 70mph. They fly. With that comes stealth. They roll up quick and quiet in comparison to say....the Bradley.

    How does that factor in todays conflicts? Simply put we always get beat to the punch. The insurgents and terrorists can hit us quick and get away. To counter that kind of speed and agility the MGS/Stryker is the best thing we have right now. Some would argue that humvees do that. But humvees die quick. The MGS and Stryker survive.

    Huh?

    Yeah. What most people don't want to let out is that Strykers are resilient as all hell. They don't just blow up when an IED hits them the way a Bradley will. The MGS & Stryker is light. It just gets knocked over. No kidding. People inside might be hurt - but they aren't killed nearly as often.

    Okay. Speed. Resilience. What else?

    Well the MGS is the quick firepower. Mainly we use it to breach buildings, hit vehicles, and create intimidation. Usually we roll with ICV's (infantry carrier vehicles), which are just Strykers rolling with a .50 and a squad of infantry. So you have a couple of ICV's and a big 105mm as backup. When the trunk monkeys jump out the back of ICV's the MGS is a helluva overwatch. With enhanced thermals and overkill firepower nobody really wants to keep fighting.

    Insurgents see the MGS and they disappear. At first they were a novelty and these guys shoot at anything that is new. Like the ATGM system Stryker. But when the turret starts to rotate all hostile fire stops. They think we can see through walls and stuff. LOL!

    The bad side is that the MGS is mechanically complex. The autoloading system is cumbersome. We can't carry organic infantry support. We can't self-recover.

    But none of that matters after you see a cannister round hit a car!
    Yrkoon9,

    Thanks for posting. That tracks with most of what I have heard regarding survivability of the Stryker. I've only worked around, not on them. The unit I worked with didn't have the MGS yet, just the infantry variants.

    Be sure to post a intro in the appropriate thread.
    "A Sherman can give you a very nice... edge."- Oddball, Kelly's Heroes
    Who is Cavguy?

  6. #66
    Council Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    AUT+RUS
    Posts
    87

    Default

    Sounds like cavalry. I guess nobody doubts that as long as you stay off soft or wet grounds the wheeled approach is viable. And for colonial warfare without armored resp modern anti-armor-enabled opposition like Iraq the Stryker is sure quite suitable.

    But I still see the danger of SBCTs being deployed outside their capabilities of, lets put it "protected infantry mobility". Versions like the TOW, the MGS, the 120mm Mortar (and the howitzer) make that quite tempting.

    Question on the MGS: Is there a specific reason for the long barrel? Wouldn't a 105mm howitzer like, say, the L119 do? Is there a long-range fire requirement for the MGS?

  7. #67
    Council Member Rob Thornton's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Location
    Fort Leavenworth, KS
    Posts
    1,510

    Default

    Man - has this thread gone in some interesting directions. There was one post back aways that I do need to clear up - I think the folks above did listen to us - not on everything, but there are some things that just can't be changed for one reason or another - sometimes there are things that need to be the way they are for some other reason. By and large, the Army did a pretty good job I think in the bottom up refinement that came along with implementing the SBCTs - and I think they continue to do so through the mechanisms they've put in place down at Benning and at the locations where we've grown SBCTs, and from Iraq.

    The discussion about where they are best suited only gets you so far though. There are just no panaceas for all the conditions which we might face. However, that has never stopped us from putting one type of force into conditions to which is what not ideally suited for before. I can tell you I had a heckuva lot more organic combat power in platoons, companies and BN in the SBCT then I had in 1/187th out the 101st AASLT. From the concepts of mobility, firepower, C2, survivability to the flat out 170 men within the company - it is an incredibly versatile formation. Combine that with modularity - i.e. you want to add AH-64s, or other capabilities, and the higher echelon CDRs can tailor the force to better suit its conditions - never probably a perfect fit, but closer then we've probably gotten before.

    I'll tell you with the right terrain, and some good situational awareness I'd be comfortable employing the SBCT against most enemies (meaning in terms of not only composition, but size) I might envision having to fight - not to mention that we have a superb Air Force, and other capabilities that we can increasingly draw on - I don't have to meet somebody’s tank DIV head on to wreck it - I just have to get to a place where I have an advantage that I can exploit better then he can - being able to identify what the enemy is trying to do, and where he might be going, move faster then he can to the place so I grab the good ground, place allot of Infantry with sophisticated ATGMs like Javelin in places that he has to bring his armor in close to get at (with Javelin I already have good fire and forget, soft launch, good acquisition capabilities) - lay in a good fire plan with the 10 x 120mm per IN BN, andthe 18 x 155s in the Arty BN, lay out some good obstacles to include the advance mines we have, and tie it all together with allot of Infantry and I place him into a disadvantage our other asymmetric advantages can exploit - be they NLOS-LS, the USAF, Army ATK AVN, or a HBCT attacking from a flank. If its an away game that has limited the amount of heavy formations that we've been able to get in, then those formations can be used by the higher echelon CDR to exploit opportunities, and meet the enemy on our terms vs. his.

    I'm not saying that the SBCT acn only be seen as a defensive force against armor either - I'm saying that you have to recongize what your strengths and weaknesses are, and employ them accordingly - I never, ever want a fair fight - I always want to catch the other guy while he's eating chow, refueling, unable to defend himself, screwing off in a place he thought he was safe, etc - with some good intelligence (meaning the type that comes from applying thought to information) I can get that - if I can then exploit in ways the enemy could not expect - I'll probably hand him his lunch - and everybody will be better off. Oh - and I always want more resources to do it with then I should legitmately expect - but with the caliber of men and women we have I'll probably find a way to make do with what I'm given.

    I guess my point is, we have a pretty well rounded force which we should not and do not expect to employ divorced from our other capabilities. We also have a good menu of capabilities from which we can put a better package forward to provide an enemy who only has a limited suite of options at his disposal off balance. Our medium (SBCT), AASLT, Airborne, SOF, Mech/Armor, and light forces offer force planners and commander a host of capabilities that can compliment each other, and keep the enemy off balance. Add to that our incredible logistics capabilities, ATK and other Aviation, ENG and other Maneuver enhancement capabilities and our RSTA assets and the U.S. Army can put forward forces that campaign in most places where we have interests that will put us there. Further combine that with the Marines expeditionary amphibious warfare capability - that includes a fixed wing air force larger then most countries, and you further place adversaries at a disadvantage when trying to deny us entry, or meet us with a superior force. Without going into the detail of our Air and Naval capabilities, lets just limit it to saying that while we may not be able to control everything at once - we can dominate and pretty much control everything we need to in order to support our employment of land power.

    We should not look at any of these capabilities in a vacuum - we must look at the way we wage war from a Joint perspective - be it fighting an insurgency, fighting a conventional force, or some hybrid (or blended or hwoever you choose your descriptive words). Further, we must leverage where possible the Inter-Agency. Regardless of the formation, or what equipment they carry into battle, winning the war begins in our minds - and is probably where it gets lost as well. I think SWC member Frank Hoffman's piece (on the SWJ Blog) is a good place to start when considering the range of conditions that will face us - while enemies have always sought to disadvantage their opponents a in time an space, the opportunites and possibilites to do so have perghaps gone up in a number of ways - we will have to massage the old grey matter real good to seize and retain the advantage - particularly given our LOCs and the domestic policy issues we confront in pursuit of our foreign policy objectives - without the equipment between the ears in good working order, it won't matter what the type of equipment we bring to the fight can do.

    Best, Rob
    Last edited by Rob Thornton; 02-03-2008 at 03:22 AM.

  8. #68
    Council Member Tankguy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Location
    Anglicized Texan
    Posts
    35

    Default

    I was an MGS Platoon Sergeant in 1-24 in the days prior to MGS fielding. During my tenure with the unit all MGS platoons were equipped with ATGM variants in-lieu of the MGS which was still in development. The MGS completed IOTE at Fort Hood late last year and I am anxious to see how the addition of the MGS influences the adaptation of the SBCT rifle company. We encountered a large amount of discovering learning as experienced tank crews jumping on to TOW equipped vehicles. The lack of fire on the move capability and the requirement to track with the TOW were very foreign to what we were aqauinted with. IMO the MGS will allow the SBCT to function more effectively and reach the full extent of it's potential.

    Now, before any M-113 fans jump in, understanding the role of the Stryker is key. It is not meant to replace heavy armor, just bridge the capability gap between the heavy stuff and the light guys. With the addition of the 105mm direct fire capability and stabilized FCS the Stryker company should be able to expand offensive abilities not possible with the ATGM system.

    For posterity, the M-113 is not, and has never been referred to as a "gavin". That is a one man crusade that I will not sully this forum with. Google the name and you will find ample propaganda. The U.S. DoD has never referred to the M-113 as gavin. No foreign military has referred to the M-113 as a gavin. I am an active duty armor soldier and I have only heard one person refer to the vehicle as such.

    I look forward to more discussion on this board.

  9. #69
    Council Member Rob Thornton's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Location
    Fort Leavenworth, KS
    Posts
    1,510

    Default

    Tankguy is as solid an Armor SNCO (or any other branch) as any I know and better then many. I'd attribute our BN's success (and any other BN's for that matter) to the professionalism that he and those NCOs like him embody. This is a case where his company and our company had a healthy competitive realtionship which made us both better.

    Glad your aboard, and hope you will weigh in on a variety of topics here.

    Best, Rob

  10. #70
    Council Member William F. Owen's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    The State of Partachia, at the eastern end of the Mediterranean
    Posts
    3,947

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Tankguy View Post
    With the addition of the 105mm direct fire capability and stabilized FCS the Stryker company should be able to expand offensive abilities not possible with the ATGM system.
    Any chance of being more specific? What offensive abilities?

    Quote Originally Posted by Tankguy View Post
    For posterity, the M-113 is not, and has never been referred to as a "gavin". That is a one man crusade that I will not sully this forum with. Google the name and you will find ample propaganda. The U.S. DoD has never referred to the M-113 as gavin. No foreign military has referred to the M-113 as a gavin. I am an active duty armor soldier and I have only heard one person refer to the vehicle as such.
    .
    I fear we are already sullied!

    http://council.smallwarsjournal.com/...ead.php?t=2093
    Infinity Journal "I don't care if this works in practice. I want to see it work in theory!"

    - The job of the British Army out here is to kill or capture Communist Terrorists in Malaya.
    - If we can double the ratio of kills per contact, we will soon put an end to the shooting in Malaya.
    Sir Gerald Templer, foreword to the "Conduct of Anti-Terrorist Operations in Malaya," 1958 Edition

  11. #71
    Council Member Tankguy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Location
    Anglicized Texan
    Posts
    35

    Default

    William,

    The ATGM Stryker is based on a TOW ITAS system. The TOW is very different from the fire control system tank soldiers are familiar with. You cannot fire TOW on the move. Once you launch a TOW, you must track all the way to the target. With the MGS and it's tank FCS, you can fire on the move over rough terrain. Also, tank fire control systems are like bowling. Once you fire, you can lean all you want, but the round is going where you aimed. There is no need to stay exposed when you fire. Once the gun goes bang, you can displace. The FCS also means that the MGS identify and track targets while moving.

  12. #72
    Council Member William F. Owen's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    The State of Partachia, at the eastern end of the Mediterranean
    Posts
    3,947

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Tankguy View Post
    William,

    The ATGM Stryker is based on a TOW ITAS system. The TOW is very different from the fire control system tank soldiers are familiar with. You cannot fire TOW on the move. Once you launch a TOW, you must track all the way to the target. With the MGS and it's tank FCS, you can fire on the move over rough terrain. Also, tank fire control systems are like bowling. Once you fire, you can lean all you want, but the round is going where you aimed. There is no need to stay exposed when you fire. Once the gun goes bang, you can displace. The FCS also means that the MGS identify and track targets while moving.
    Thanks for that and this is basically the reasons I guessed. This to my mind points out one of the problems with trying to flow the Stryker concept across a Formation. The M151 RWS on the ICV can be modified to take Javelin ATGM, so why have the TOW ITAS in the formation?

    The calibre and FCS configuration on MGS strongly suggests an ANTI-Tank requirement. - that could be handled by a modified ICV.

    The need for close fire support / HE Projection, is, IMO, not best served by a 105mm gun, unless the Anti-tanks requirement is what is driving the requirement.
    Infinity Journal "I don't care if this works in practice. I want to see it work in theory!"

    - The job of the British Army out here is to kill or capture Communist Terrorists in Malaya.
    - If we can double the ratio of kills per contact, we will soon put an end to the shooting in Malaya.
    Sir Gerald Templer, foreword to the "Conduct of Anti-Terrorist Operations in Malaya," 1958 Edition

  13. #73
    Council Member Rob Thornton's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Location
    Fort Leavenworth, KS
    Posts
    1,510

    Thumbs up

    Tankguy - I still tell the story of your use of the TOW thermals to get a very close look at some Lousiville wildlife on a hot FT Knox during a local media event - up until then I did not know the thermals were that good!
    Best, Rob

  14. #74
    Council Member Tankguy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Location
    Anglicized Texan
    Posts
    35

    Default

    Hell, I didn't know the ITAS was that good. (Or bad depending on what you were looking at...)

  15. #75
    Council Member Rob Thornton's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Location
    Fort Leavenworth, KS
    Posts
    1,510

    Default

    Obviously you don't remember what you called me over to look at! It was at the media event and the wildlife was a blonde reporter from a local news station. It was the same day the Ueoka got a little air on the practice run.

  16. #76
    Council Member Tankguy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Location
    Anglicized Texan
    Posts
    35

    Default

    No, I remeber vividly. I am an old guy, memories like that are what get me through life.

    The other incident involved one of the female data collectors out in the Zussman complex with a bad case of chiggers and a full bladder. My loader was on thermal watch and got the entire crew piled into the the TC and GNR's seat to watch that debacle.

  17. #77
    Council Member
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    Just outside the Beltway
    Posts
    203

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by William F. Owen View Post
    Thanks for that and this is basically the reasons I guessed. This to my mind points out one of the problems with trying to flow the Stryker concept across a Formation. The M151 RWS on the ICV can be modified to take Javelin ATGM, so why have the TOW ITAS in the formation?
    Range.

  18. #78
    Council Member Rob Thornton's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Location
    Fort Leavenworth, KS
    Posts
    1,510

    Default

    You know - by comparrison, things were considerably simpler then - too many good Deuce Four soldiers (and many others) that have moved on. Its good to think back to that Summer - I remember Bobby G telling one of your ICVs to move that OPFOR van out of the way when the guy told him he did not have the keys. OTC and those guys about had a cow. As BNs go, that was a damned fine one - lots of personality, and proficiency.
    Best, Rob

  19. #79
    i pwnd ur ooda loop selil's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Location
    Belly of the beast
    Posts
    2,112

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Tankguy View Post
    The ATGM Stryker is based on a TOW ITAS system. The TOW is very different from the fire control system tank soldiers are familiar with.
    Ewwwwwww. You used the TOW word. My original USMC MOS was 2875 (no longer exists) as a Small Missile Technician. In 1985 I was at 3rd Tanks, Tow Co. at MCAGCC when we put TOW on the LAV's and started moving off Jeeps.

    You wouldn't believe what we used to do with the optics....
    Sam Liles
    Selil Blog
    Don't forget to duck Secret Squirrel
    The scholarship of teaching and learning results in equal hatred from latte leftists and cappuccino conservatives.
    All opinions are mine and may or may not reflect those of my employer depending on the chance it might affect funding, politics, or the setting of the sun. As such these are my opinions you can get your own.

  20. #80
    Council Member Rob Thornton's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Location
    Fort Leavenworth, KS
    Posts
    1,510

    Default

    Sam - Tank and I were,... well talking about the optics in another regard, but - they are some outstanding optics. Being able to put a missile out to say 4(+) Kms then (who knows how far now) requires some really good optics.

    Now these optics are also a superb surveillance device. Having the communcations between the MGS platoon and Infantry platoons allowed us some advantages in this respect. Soldiers, Marines, Airmen, and Sailors are all pretty good at figuring out how to get more out of their equipment - beyond its designed purpose. Thermal devices in general are now pretty prolific at the tactical level - the Javelin sights, the small arms TWS sights, etc. If you know the capabilities and limitations, and can combine them with higher's assets you can come up with a pretty good R&S plan that allows you to get out in front of the enemy - catch him when he thinks nobody is looking.

    Retaining a TOW Company at the SBCT level also provides a good round out capability for the 06 CDR - and makes the SBCT a more capable force. TOW has come a long way (so has Javelin) - but TOW is still wire guided.

    Best, Rob

Similar Threads

  1. The Clausewitz Collection (merged thread)
    By SWJED in forum Futurists & Theorists
    Replies: 933
    Last Post: 03-19-2018, 02:38 PM
  2. Osprey collection (merged thread)
    By Ironhorse in forum Equipment & Capabilities
    Replies: 32
    Last Post: 12-17-2016, 02:37 PM
  3. The David Kilcullen Collection (merged thread)
    By Fabius Maximus in forum Doctrine & TTPs
    Replies: 451
    Last Post: 03-31-2016, 03:23 PM
  4. The Warden Collection (merged thread)
    By slapout9 in forum Futurists & Theorists
    Replies: 317
    Last Post: 09-30-2015, 05:56 PM
  5. The John Boyd collection (merged thread)
    By SWJED in forum Futurists & Theorists
    Replies: 218
    Last Post: 05-30-2012, 10:24 AM

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •