Stryker collection (merged thread)

[RTK]

Systems aren't the most important issue here, it's doctrine and soldier training.

I agree. However, I have a hard time believing that the Stryker is giving the Army the keys to the kingdom in the respect of force modernization. We're contracting the maintenance of the Strykers, meaning that while a tank or Bradley crewman can change track in his sleep, Stryker crewmen have to take their vehicle to Jiffy Lube to change their oil. -10 level maintenance tasks are few and far between and Joe isn't allowed to perform maintenance to the extent that he can on a tracked vehicle yet.

The Army has (at least doctrinally) produced a micro-scale combined arms force in the Stryker company - direct fire, indirect fire, anti-tank weapons and infantry under a single command which will train together regularly.

Sound an awful lot like armored cavalry to me. I revisit your early statement in that we need to improve doctrine and soldier training. We're making these Stryker units infantry heavy but requiring them to essentially perform a scout mission. There either needs to be a shift in MOS specific skills or a relooking at MTOEs as far as 19D billets in these areas. It is not as easy to teach an infantryman to be a scout as one would think. There's a mindset. Not saying that taddletales and cowards make the best scouts, but our job is to report PIR and avoid contact, especially with the way reconnaissance units are being restructured.

The Stryker is performing (in Infantry units) the same mission that M113s were performing long ago. They aren't that much better equipped as far as firepower than an M1114. Most are equipped with .50 CALs with a thermal sight system. They do offer better force protection than a HMMWV, but they're not going to be able to be decisively engaged with a mechanized force. I would hazard to guess that none of you would make a Stryker unit your main effort in a frontal assault against an enemy tank brigade of T72s and T82s.

Much has been talked about the lack of mobility of heavy armor in the MOUT fight. I disagree, as someone who was on both tanks and bradleys in Fallujah, Ramadi, Khalidiyah, and Al Qaim. Mobility is often not restricted as much by the capabilites of the platform as they are the competency of the crew. I've taken tanks on hills and mountain trails that motorized forces said they could not traverse with little difficulty. It goes back to the training piece Mr. Jones alluded to.

In the end, I agree that the Stryker improves mobility to the fight. The MGS will improve lethality for Stryker units. It is not a replacement for heavy armor. It's just one more tool for the Army to use to get troopies into the fight.