Quote Originally Posted by Fuchs View Post
The original IFV concept (Schützenpanzer) made sense for a short period - in 1944-1945 when infantry AT had ranges smaller than rifle range.
Yes, and that remained true until the very late 50s. Because of the length of equipment development cycles, the majority of IFVs hit the ground in the early 70s (80s for the Bradley -- we're somehwat slow...) -- AFTER the things that made them less necessary if not undesirable, the effective ATGM and better tank fire control, were fielded. Armies do not think ahead at all well...

Rifleman:
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?
Two different things IMO. The Bradley is what you say. With the Stryker, I question what, precisely, the 'role' is...

In any event, we're stuck with both for the forseeable future so they'll have balance each other in a sense. The Bradley has been improved to the point where it is almost acceptable for its role and it'll do okay until a big war comes and we can then get a batter vehicle. Same for the Stryker which will disappear from the inventory earlier. Partly because the role will possibly if not probably evaporate.

We may possibly do better. Armored warfare requires systems; the Tank and the Infantry carrier -- if not combined into one vehicle (with humungous advantages) should at least be a complimentary, rationalized and almost interchangeable pair of packages. The movement of Armor and Infantry to the 'Combined Arms Center of Excellence' may truly get some coherent and non-parochial thinking going. We can do better. We need to do so.
That was my point when asking if considering something like a TRICAP brigade or cavalry regiment was worthwhile.
Tri Cap was a Division concept, two heavy Bdes and an Air Cav Bde (which included Hoptiflopter lift for a Bn worth of Mech Inf). 1st Cav Tested it in the early 70s and, as you note, it didn't proved adequate MASSS in the eyes of some for Cold War purposes. My vote for the Div would be no because the air Cav Bde is not an effective full substitute for a third ground maneuver Bde.

However, IMO it would work as you describe. For a Bde as you described, my vote would be an emphatic yes -- with two caveats. First, such an organization would be limited so 'organizing' some units like that would create another case of 'it's there, use it.' You'd only be able to use it fairly benign scenarios (birds are delicate...). However, the Army should be able to task organize such a Force as and when required. It could do that today but that gets us to the second caveat.

The Commanders in the chain of such organizations would have to be intuitive, flexible and innovative. We have such people -- but the pipeline doesn't always provide them.

Thus, yet again, I fear a really good idea would probably flounder because our terrible personnel system and our not the best in the world training added to our terribly inefficient and bureaucratic equipment procurement system couldn't or wouldn't provide what was needed to make a good concept work.

I also believe I should note that the three big problem areas I cited are not solely the fault of the Army -- Congress almost forces most of those failures with a slew of laws that mean well but have terrible unintended consequences.

Still, to develop and use such an organization would mean very different ways of doing business. Not a bad thing at all...