The Roles and Weapons with the Squad

[reed11b]

Well that's another can of worms, and it comes down to what you actually want the infantry to do. I think IFVs are not good for infantry. APCs are however essential.

Disagree in a way... IFV's manned by Infantry as an intregal part of the infantry platoon is bad from infantry becouse it creates a huge tax on infantry skills and manpower. IFV's manned by dedicated IFV crewmen, i.e. 19Whatevers, in a dedicated IFV platoon, could be a valuable battlefield support. Still chewing on Ken's dragoon concept as an alternative to my infantry is infantry is infantry theory.
Reed

[William F. Owen]

Disagree in a way... IFV's manned by Infantry as an intregal part of the infantry platoon is bad from infantry becouse it creates a huge tax on infantry skills and manpower. IFV's manned by dedicated IFV crewmen, i.e. 19Whatevers, in a dedicated IFV platoon, could be a valuable battlefield support. Still chewing on Ken's dragoon concept as an alternative to my infantry is infantry is infantry theory.
Reed

Can't disagree with your logic Reed! In fact I agree!

Problem here is the very fine line between IFV and APC. What gives me grief is a vehicle that is essentially a light tank or reconnaissance vehicle, being used to transport infantry.

I am inclined to the view that there are Tanks, and there are APCs. I am worried about "hybrids" not able to do either job very well.

....and I've seen an M2 Bradely "they" took the turret off, fitted another 4 men inside, and used the spare weight to add more armour.

[AlexTX ret]

Disagree in a way... IFV's manned by Infantry as an intregal part of the infantry platoon is bad from infantry becouse it creates a huge tax on infantry skills and manpower. IFV's manned by dedicated IFV crewmen, i.e. 19Whatevers, in a dedicated IFV platoon, could be a valuable battlefield support. Still chewing on Ken's dragoon concept as an alternative to my infantry is infantry is infantry theory.
Reed

Is your IFV a minitank that carries a section of infantry on the side?

Is it a battle taxi with support weapons added to it as an upgrade ie. M113A3 ACCV?

Is it supposed to take the place of larger, greater weapons load and more expensive MBT or is it an addtional asset? Can it be used in the anti-tank Role? Is it easily transportable with a possible reduction in armor?

Is it meant to operate on its own (or with others of its kind) or must it operate in a mixed weapons force? Is it part of a greater weapons system that does as many of the battlefield tasks as possible ie Stryker with a 90mm gun?

I'm not asking these as b*llsh*t questions for in many (those that can afford them) countries this is a raging fire storm. The loss of the IFV/APC if loaded is 3 crewman and a section of infantry in one strike. If it's an IFV unloaded, there is the loss of small unit assets. In both cases, if unloaded, there is the psychological loss of all the section's personal assets such as extra clothing and possibly extra ammunition as well.

The US answered the question with the Stryker which came out of our Iraq experience. But will it work in a bigger more intense battlefield?

One final question. Where do the vehicle crewmen fit in the command structure? Are they part of the squad/platoon or are they part of the company's assets?

What is your take in all this?

[jcustis]

The US answered the question with the Stryker which came out of our Iraq experience. But will it work in a bigger more intense battlefield?

Which expoerience was that...OIF, or Op Desert Storm?

RSTA squadron doctrine was already being published (with Strykers symbolized in the print vice Brads) as late as 2002.

[Ken White]

Which expoerience was that...OIF, or Op Desert Storm?

RSTA squadron doctrine was already being published (with Strykers symbolized in the print vice Brads) as late as 2002.

pressure on the Army to 'modernize.' They talked about and tested tracks and wheels in 2000-2001 -- came up with tracks are better but there's nothing out there now (then) light enough. Solution: develop lighter tracks (FCS), buy an interim wheeled vehicle. It was acknowledged there were better wheel vehicles available than the Stryker but since this was an interim buy, the decision was made to go with the cheapest wheeled vehicle that had been judge adequate. Or in version 2, one of Shinseki's cronies went to work for General Dynamics which were in process of buying GM Canada, producer of the vehicle under license from Mowag of Switzerland (also later bought by GD...). Take your pick.

Iraq had nothing to do with the purchase of the Stryker.

[reed11b]

Is your IFV a minitank that carries a section of infantry on the side?

Is it a battle taxi with support weapons added to it as an upgrade ie. M113A3 ACCV?

Is it supposed to take the place of larger, greater weapons load and more expensive MBT or is it an addtional asset? Can it be used in the anti-tank Role? Is it easily transportable with a possible reduction in armor?

Is it meant to operate on its own (or with others of its kind) or must it operate in a mixed weapons force? Is it part of a greater weapons system that does as many of the battlefield tasks as possible ie Stryker with a 90mm gun?

I'm not asking these as b*llsh*t questions for in many (those that can afford them) countries this is a raging fire storm. The loss of the IFV/APC if loaded is 3 crewman and a section of infantry in one strike. If it's an IFV unloaded, there is the loss of small unit assets. In both cases, if unloaded, there is the psychological loss of all the section's personal assets such as extra clothing and possibly extra ammunition as well.

The US answered the question with the Stryker which came out of our Iraq experience. But will it work in a bigger more intense battlefield?

One final question. Where do the vehicle crewmen fit in the command structure? Are they part of the squad/platoon or are they part of the company's assets?

What is your take in all this?

As far as Squad - Platoon - CO level asset, in my view they should definitely be a CO or Higher level asset and should operate in at least platoon level formations (4-6 vehicles) to allow for independent C&C capabilities. As far as the Psychological impact of "your" gear going boom, that is part of what we do wrong with IFV's. Infantry platoons should take there gear w/ them and whatever is left on the IFV in support should be generic supplies (ammo, food, water, etc.) IFV should not be "assigned” to individual infantry Platoons except for insertion and extraction. They should be able to operate in support or independently of the infantry they support. They are not tanks, and should not have an anti-armor mission except in extreme situations. Of course I am a believer that infantry that supports tanks should be in vehicles with truly tank levels of armor. IFV's should be generalist fighting support vehicles capable of quickly moving infantry and supporting them by fire, advanced c3 and RSTA capabilities, and resupply. They should operate in platoon size elements Unfortunately this is not how any military that I know uses or organizes them so proving my concept would be difficult to say the least.
Reed