Stryker collection (merged thread)

[Yrkoon9]

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!

[Cavguy]

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.

[Distiller]

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?

[Rob Thornton]

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

[Tankguy]

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.

[Rob Thornton]

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

[William F. Owen]

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?

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

[Tankguy]

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.

[William F. Owen]

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.

[selil]

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....