Re-structuring the BCT

[B.Smitty]

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...'

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".

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.

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.

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?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...

I don't see this "limited utility". SBCTs have all the MCO utility of an infantry unit, but with far greater mobility, protection and firepower than light infantry.

As an infantry company commander, you not only have your soldier's weapons, you also have 3 x MGSs, 2 x 120mm mortar vehicles, and a .50 cal or 40mm on every Stryker.

If you need to perform pure dismounted ops, you have full 3x9+7 rifle platoons, a sniper team, 60mm mortars, and a FIST to call upon.

A heavy mech inf company in the same situation has, at best, smaller 3x9 platoons, no mortars, no snipers, no fire support team.

The Stryker upgrades will include a more powerful engine (450hp vs 350hp), larger tires and an improved suspension. It will also have a lower center of gravity to reduce rollover risks. So it may end up being a net mobility gain, even though it's roughly 1 ton heavier.

In combat, agility almost always beats armor.

I don't know if i agree with the "almost always" part. In Iraq, even with all of our whiz-bang ISR technology, most engagements resulted from movements to contact. So units have to absorb the initial volley before reacting. In fact, more agile HMMWV-mounted scouts were relegate to rear-area security duties because their commanders felt they were unsurvivable.

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.

Clearly if you're fighting Hezbollah on their home turf, movements to contact in a Stryker will result in a lot of dead Strykers. So you don't use them that way, in that situation. Let heavy forces lead the way. (and even they may not be heavy enough)

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.

It's an APC with good enough tactical mobility for most situations.

SBCTs fill a whole in the capability matrix. Infantry-centric, but not foot mobile. Armored, but not "heavy".

Just MHO.